AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 12651/87

                      by Elisabeth and Roland GRUFMAN

                      against Sweden

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 9 May 1989, the following members being present:

              MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  F. ERMACORA

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  H. VANDENBERGHE

             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             Mr.  F. MARTINEZ

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  L. LOUCAIDES

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 30 December

1985 by Elisabeth and Roland GRUFMAN against Sweden and registered on

19 January 1987 under file No. 12651/87;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 11 September 1987 and the observations in reply

submitted by the applicants on 2 November 1987;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

        The applicants are a married couple born in 1953 and 1948

respectively.  They are Swedish citizens who were formerly living in

Sweden and are now living in Norway.  Mrs.  Grufman receives an

early retirement pension and Mr.  Grufman a disability pension.  Before

the Commission they are represented by Mr.  Lennart Hane, a lawyer

practising in Stockholm .

        On 28 April 1981, when still in Sweden, the first applicant

gave birth to the twins Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik.  On 30 October 1981

the Chairman of the Social Council of Örebro Municipality (Örebro

kommun, västra sociala distriktsnämnden) decided to take the

applicants' children into care pursuant to Sections 11, 25 (a) and 29

of the 1960 Act on Child Welfare (barnavårdslagen, "the 1960 Act").

This decision was confirmed by the Social Council at a meeting of 9

November 1981.  In addition it was decided that the decision to take

the children into care should be carried out immediately, that the

children's residence was not to be divulged to the applicants for a

period of six months and that the applicants should have no right of

access to their children during that time (Section 41 of the 1960

Act).  The applicants were present at the meeting and had submitted

written statements that were read out to the Council.

        The Social Council's reason for the care decision was that the

children had been subject to such treatment in their home that their

physical health and their development were endangered.  This was

caused by their father's unsuitability as a custodian and their

mother's inability to educate them.  Preventive measures had been

taken and proved insufficient.  Further preventive measures were

considered useless.  It was feared that the applicants would disturb

the care of the children during the first period of care.

        The Social Council based its decision on a report of

9 November 1981 prepared by the social authorities at Örebro.  To the

report a medical certificate of 2 November 1981 issued by Chief Doctor

A.J-G. of the Children's Psychiatric Clinic Ringen at Örebro was

attached and also a summary of the information the Care Council

(omsorgsstyrelsen) at Örebro had collected on Mrs.  Grufman during

the years she was registered with them.  The summary was signed by Mr.

S.W., Head of Care.  The report referred to and cited from two medical

certificates concerning Mr.  Grufman, of 24 September and 8 November 1979,

issued by Deputy Chief Doctor J.W. and Chief Doctor L.O.N., respectively.

        In the medical certificate issued by A.J-G. it is stated that

the applicants are not aware of the children's needs and cannot

satisfy them.  They give priority to their own needs rather than to

those of the children.  Their care for the children is irregular and

unvaried and they are not prepared to accept assistance with the care

of the children.

        From the report it appears inter alia that the social

authorities already before the children were born had doubts as to the

applicants' ability to take proper care of them.  Mr.  Grufman had had

a drinking problem before he met his wife and had been convicted of

several minor offences.  Mrs.  Grufman had been registered with the

Care Council and in connection with the registration it was discussed

whether she was mentally retarded.  Immediately after the children had

been born municipal home care aid was provided to support the

applicants and to assess their ability to care for the children.

Subsequent to a decision by the Chairman of the Social District

Council of 6 October 1981 to take the children into public care for

investigation, it was decided, at the request of the applicants, to

have the investigation carried out in their home.  A social welfare

officer was placed with the applicants  between 7 and 30 October 1981

to observe the way they cared for the children and the children's

development.  The observations made during this period led to the

conclusion that the children's environment was unsatisfactory.  The

applicants' flat was never clean.  From a hygienical point of view the

children were badly cared for.  The applicants neglected the advice

given by the Child Care Centre (barnavårdscentralen) and the social

authorities regarding the way to care for the children.  Both parents,

but especially Mrs.  Grufman, handled the children in a clumsy and

uninterested way and had insufficient physical contact with them.  The

children were on several occasions left crying without getting any

attention.  It had occurred that Mr.  Grufman behaved in a menacing

manner when he did not have his way or when somebody had a different

opinion on how to care for the twins.  It was necessary to obtain

police assistance when the children were taken into care on a

provisional basis on 31 October 1981.

        The twins were placed in a foster home at Degerfors.

        Since the applicants did not consent to the decision of the

Social Council the case was submitted to the County Administrative

Court (länsrätten) of the County of Örebro for examination.

        The County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case

on 3 December 1981 at which the applicants were present and

represented by counsel under the Legal Aid Act (rättshjälpslagen).  The

children were represented by officially appointed counsel.  During

the proceedings the Chief Doctor A.J-G. was heard as an expert.

Furthermore the applicants were heard as well as four witnesses called

by them.  In its judgment of 11 December 1981 the Court stated inter

alia the following:

        "In accordance with the medical opinion which A.J-G.

has submitted in this case and according to her statements,

the Court finds that there are serious disturbances in the

relationship between the parents and the children and that

the parents are unable to satisfy the important needs

in order to secure to the children a satisfactory

future development.  Apart from the statements made by the

witnesses in this court the examination of the case shows

reason for taking the children into care.  The submissions

which suggest that there are no such reasons cannot in these

circumstances be seen to carry such a weight that they call

for another evaluation than the one the examination of the

case otherwise results in.  Therefore the Court finds it

established that Karl-Michael's and Jan-Erik's development

is jeopardised because of Elisabeth and Roland Grufman's

inability to satisfy the children's need of care.  Supportive

measures have been tried without success.  Further supportive

measures must be considered ineffective for the time being.

Reasons for taking Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik into care are

therefore at hand."

        The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the

Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping.  In a

separate appeal the first applicant complained about the decision of

the Social Council to restrict the applicants' right of access and not

to inform them of their children's residence while in care.  This

decision had been upheld by the County Administrative Court in a

judgment of 11 March 1982.  On 13 April 1982 the Social Council

decided, however, after a successful meeting had been arranged between

the applicants, the children and the foster parents on 8 April 1982,

that the applicants be allowed to visit their children in the foster

home on 15 April 1982 and on 28 April 1982.

        The Administrative Court of Appeal held a hearing on 31 March

1982 at which the applicants were present and the first applicant and

the children represented in the same way as in the County Administrative

Court.  Chief Doctor A.J-G. was heard as an expert witness.  Seven

witnesses were heard at the first applicant's request.  The Court

overruled the decision to restrict access and not to inform the

applicants about the children's residence.  In the judgment, which was

delivered on 15 April 1982, the Court pointed out that it was the

Social Council's duty to co-operate with the parents in order to

secure contact between the applicants and their children during the

care period.

        Following the hearing the Administrative Court of Appeal

decided to obtain an opinion from the National Board of Health and

Welfare (socialstyrelsen) as to whether the observations made by the

expert witness A.J-G., during her visits to the applicants' home,

could reasonably form the basis of a definite statement that "a

considerable risk to the children's development was at hand were they

to stay with their parents".  In an opinion of 10 May 1982 the Board

submitted inter alia that the measures taken by A.J-G. to obtain

information about the children's situation were sufficient to enable

her to make a statement.  There was no reason to question her

conclusion that there would be a considerable risk to the development

of the children if they were to stay with their parents.  The Board

supported the care decision and considered it important that the

children be placed permanently with foster parents who could function

as their psychological parents.

        In a judgment of 13 July 1982 the Administrative Court of

Appeal confirmed the County Administrative Court's decision to take

the applicants' children into care, now in accordance with Section 1

second paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care

of Young Persons (lagen  med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga,

"the 1980 Act").  In its judgment the  Administrative Court of Appeal

stated inter alia:

        "Indeed the examination of the case does not reveal

any serious deficiencies in the practical ability of Mr. and

Mrs.  Grufman to take care of their children or their ability

to benefit from help and assistance in this respect.  Their

good intentions to take care of their children cannot be

questioned.  There is also no reason which suggests that

(Roland) Grufman would not refrain from the abuse of alcohol

or from committing criminal acts or that he would not be

socially stable in the future.  Reasons for considering him

as being unable to take proper care of the children due to

his previous abuse and criminal acts are therefore not at

hand.  However, what appears to be serious and what the

witnesses obviously did not consider or regard as being of

importance are the emotional deficiencies in the personality

of both spouses which Chief Doctor A.J-G. noticed and

which, according to her, means that they lack the ability to

satisfy important and primary needs of the children.  The

circumstances pointed out by A.J-G. involve such a danger for

the health and development of the children if they remain in

their home as is mentioned in Section 1 of the 1980 Act

with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons.   The

conditions for taking the children into care in accordance

with the above provision are therefore fulfilled."

        As to the witnesses heard at the first applicant's request the

Court stated that they were friends and acquaintances of the

applicants, who had visited the spouses when the children were at

home.  The children had been well cared for, Mr.  Grufman had not

abused alcohol or otherwise misbehaved.  He participated in the care of

the children.  The spouses were happy about the children, but might

have needed help with the cleaning.  A few witnesses stated that they

could not understand why the children had been taken into care.

        The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative

Court (regeringsrätten) which, on 16 September 1982, refused to grant

leave to appeal.

        Following requests made by the applicants that the care of the

twins be terminated the Social Council on 14 December 1982,

14 December 1983 and 28 October 1987 decided that the care should

continue.

        In 1984 the applicants moved to Hede in the Municipality of

Härjedalen.

        On 2 January 1985 the first applicant gave birth to her third

son, Fredrik.  Immediately after the birth of Fredrik the social

authorities commenced an evaluation and examination of the applicants'

ability to take proper care of him.  The applicants received

assistance from a municipal home care aid.

        The social authorities' investigation resulted in a report of

29 March 1985.  Two medical certificates requested by the social

authorities were attached to the report.  The certificates were issued

on 20 and 22 March 1985 by Chief Doctor T.Ã…. and the psychologist A.N.

at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Östersund, and

Dr.  A.H. of the Hede District, respectively.

        From the first certificate it appears that it had been issued

after T.Ã…. and A.N. had met the applicants and Fredrik on two

occasions, once for 15 minutes and once for 3,5 hours, and after they

had read the reports made concerning the taking into care of the

twins.  In the certificate it was stated that the applicants have

serious difficulties in solving conflicts and that Mr.  Grufman creates

conflicts in situations where there are simple solutions.  He easily

gets aggressive in these situations.  Mrs.  Grufman is dominated by

him.  It was furthermore stated that the Grufmans show no ability to

imagine the emotional needs of the child and that it cannot be

expected that their capacity as parents will improve with supportive

measures or psycho-therapy.  It was concluded that the Grufmans, who

did not express any wish for a change or for help, could not provide

Fredrik with good emotional surroundings to grow up in.  T.Å. and A.N.

suggested that, if their opinion concurred with that of other persons

who had been in close contact with the applicants, Fredrik should be

taken into care on a permanent basis.

        Dr.  A.H. concluded:

"As concerns the question of taking the applicants' child

into care I have only seen the child once and I have never

visited the applicants in their home.  No physical

maltreatment seems to have occurred but the spouses have

until now received substantial assistance from a municipal

home care aid.  Considering their apparent social immaturity

and as they seem to satisfy their own immediate needs before

the child's basic needs my conclusive assessment is that the

spouses unfortunately lack the qualities and the capacity

required in order not to make their child suffer in his home

environment."

        The social authorities made the following assessment in their

report:

"Statements have been requested from several persons in

order to obtain information about the impressions of others

who have been in contact with the family, especially from

those who met the family after Fredrik's birth.  I have found

that the family seldom follows the advice they get as to the

care of the child.  However, the most considerable

insufficiency seems to be the emotional contact with the

child.  The preventive measures taken have proved to be of

no value as advice from people who are not members of the

family mostly is met with aggression.  Further measures for

the family, with Fredrik at home, must be considered as

unsuitable for his future development.  The major

deficiencies in the parents' ability to meet the child's

needs, appear to be their inability to give priority to the

child's needs and not their own, and their inability to feel

related to the child."

        In an opinion of 21 March 1985 given by the social worker

B.O., on the first applicant's request for full disability

pension, it was concluded that the spouses Grufman suffered from a

considerable social handicap in addition to their lack of intellectual

resources.

        On the basis of these documents the Social Council of the

Härjedalen Municipality on 15 April 1985 decided to take Fredrik into

care on a provisional basis under Section 6 of the 1980 Act.  This

decision was upheld by the County Administrative Court of Jämtland on

22 April 1985.

        On 10 May 1985, the Social Council, revoking the decision on

immediate care, decided that the applicants should be provided with a

municipal home care aid.  However, on 13 May 1985 the Social Council filed

a request with the County Administrative Court that Fredrik be taken

into care pursuant to Section 1 second paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act.

        The reasons for the decisions of 15 April and 10 May 1985

appear from a supplement to the report of 29 March 1985 dated

28 May 1985.  The applicants, having left Hede for a visit to

Stockholm on 20 March 1985, did not return to Hede on 25 March as

planned.  They had gone to Eskilstuna where they tried to find

a flat.  They did not succeed and therefore went to see the second

applicant's brother in Sandviken.  The brother and his wife phoned the

social authorities at Sveg and expressed their concern for Fredrik.

It was then decided to take Fredrik into care on a provisional basis

and the applicants were reported as wanted by the police.  They were

not found by the police, but through their legal counsel they informed

the social authorities that they would return to Hede if the

provisional care decision was revoked.  The decision was revoked and

the applicants returned.

        The County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case on

31 May 1985 at which the second applicant was present and the

applicants were represented by counsel under the Legal Aid Act.

Fredrik was represented by officially appointed counsel.  Chief

Doctor T.Ã…. was heard as an expert witness and the municipal home care

aid L.P. as a witness at the request of the applicants.  The second

applicant was also heard.  L.P. considered that the applicants'

relation to their child was normal and that the applicants should be

allowed to take care of themselves to a greater extent.  In a judgment

of 5 June 1985, which was ordered to be immediately enforceable, the

Court stated inter alia the following:

        "From the examination carried out by the Social

Council and which constitutes the basis for the request

for care, it is clear that the spouses Grufman have received

continuing economic assistance from the Council since they

moved to Hede.  After Fredrik's birth the family has

furthermore received certain assistance with various work in

the home and concerning the care of Fredrik.

        Certain persons who have been in contact with the

family have expressed fears as to Fredrik's health and

development.  Nothing in this case shows that Fredrik  has

not developed physically in a rather satisfactory manner

with the help which has been given so far.  It can, however,

be questioned whether the parents would have had the

possibility to provide for Fredrik's basic needs of physical

care without the assistance they have received.

        Furthermore, the present facts suggest that the home

environment has such deficiencies that Fredrik's need of

stimulation cannot be satisfied in such a manner as must

be considered to be of basic importance for his continuing

mental development.  Fears thus exist that Fredrik in his

present surroundings will not get the necessary intellectual

and emotional stimulation from his parents.  Furthermore,

certain circumstances have appeared which show that Roland

Grufman has a deficient ability to solve occurring conflicts

and that he easily becomes aggressive.  This together with

his bad self-discipline can be seen as a certain risk for

Fredrik's physical health.  Furthermore, Roland Grufman's

attitude towards the persons who have been in contact with the

family in various ways in order to help or assist them has

been such that the family risks social isolation.

        Even if the witness L.P. has expressed another view,

this view relates to a relatively short period of time, for

which reason her statement must be evaluated with caution.

        Against this background, and having regard to the

fact that Elisabeth Grufman's mental handicap is of such a

character that the parents themselves must be considered to

be in need of help and assistance in their own daily

situation, Fredrik's health and development must be

considered to be in danger in his present environment.

_ _ _

        Having regard to what has been submitted in this

case, and in particular to everything Chief Doctor T.Ã…. has

stated concerning the parents' deficient ability to fulfil

their role as parents despite the necessary assistance, the

family's own suggestion concerning assistance in their home

and a contact foster family seems to be unrealistic.  Having

regard to this and to the fact that the law is aimed at

protecting children, who risk receiving bad treatment, the

Court considers that the care which the Social Council

intends to arrange in this case is necessary.

        In these circumstances the Social Council's request

to take Fredrik Grufman into care in accordance with the

1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young

Persons shall be accepted."

        On 7 June 1985 Fredrik was placed in the same foster home at

Degerfors as his brothers.

        The applicants appealed against the judgment of the County

Administrative Court to the Administrative Court of Appeal of

Sundsvall.  The Court held a hearing in the case on 24 June 1985 at

which the applicants and Fredrik were represented in the same way as

in the County Administrative Court.  The applicants were present at

the hearing.  The Court heard a witness, the nurse U.J., active in a

religious community in Stockholm, which runs the hotel in which the

applicants were then staying.  The applicants were also heard.

        In a judgment of 28 June 1985 the Administrative Court of

Appeal confirmed the judgment of the County Administrative Court.  It

stated inter alia:

        "It is clear from the examination that Fredrik,

during the time he spent with his parents, was healthy and

developed normally.  Having regard to the fact that during

that period of time the parents did not in any particular

way take care of their son alone, no conclusions can be

drawn from this regarding their ability to take care of

their child.  However, from what has been submitted in this

case concerning the spouses Grufman's mental situation it must

be considered to be established that they cannot in the

future secure to Fredrik the necessary care and education

even if assistance is available.  The Court therefore finds

that a danger to Fredrik's health and development exists if

he is not taken into care."

        The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court,

which on 8 October 1985 refused to grant leave to appeal.

        The applicants have made a request that the care of Fredrik be

terminated.

        The first applicant gave birth to a fourth son Daniel on

11 June 1986.  The applicants are now living in the municipality of Ås

in Norway with Daniel.

        The applicants have submitted a number of certificates from

friends and neighbours in Norway issued in October 1987.  From these

documents it appears that the applicants have a good relation to

Daniel, who is a healthy child.  The applicants have also submitted

certificates of similar contents of 29 October 1987 issued by the

kindergarten Daniel attends and by a doctor.

        From an opinion of 20 February 1987 given by a social welfare

officer of the municipality of Ã…s to the Swedish social

authorities, and submitted by the respondent Government, it appears

that she found that the applicants have the will to take care of

Daniel, but that their capacity to do so can be questioned in view of

their level of maturity.  She did not find it necessary, for the time

being, to take the child into care, but considered that the applicants

could only manage to take care of the child in the long run if they

got support from the authorities.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicants invoke Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

        Under Article 6 they maintain that the tribunals deciding in

their cases were not impartial.  The social authorities and the

experts who expressed views as to their capacity as guardians did so

on the basis not of scientific methods but of a bureaucratic pattern

without any objective analysis of the facts.  The courts have long

been subjected to this pattern and cannot therefore be impartial.

        Under Article 8 the applicants maintain that their right to

respect for their private and family life has been interfered with in

a manner not justifiable under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.

The facts of the case show that they are indeed in a position to take

proper care of their children and the courts have failed in their duty

to establish in a proper way that there was a necessity to take their

children into care.  The applicants' access to the children has been

arranged in such a way as to interfere with their rights under

Article 8.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 30 December 1985 and

registered on 19 January 1987.

        On 8 May 1987 the Commission decided to invite the respondent

Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and

merits of the application as regards the taking into care of the

applicants' children (Article 8 of the Convention).

        The Government's observations were dated 11 September 1987 and

the applicants' observations in reply were dated 2 November 1987.

        On 18 December 1987 the Commission granted legal aid to the

applicants.

THE LAW

1.      The applicants complain of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention, which states in para. 1, first sentence:

"In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone

is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable

time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by

law..."

        The applicants maintain that the tribunals deciding in their

cases were not impartial.  The social authorities and the experts who

expressed views as to their capacity as guardians did so on the basis

of a bureaucratic pattern which is not founded on any objective

analysis of the facts.  The courts have long been subjected to this

pattern and cannot therefore offer the parties an impartial procedure.

        As regards the proceedings concerning the taking into care of

the twins Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik the Commission , however, is not

required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicants disclose

any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) as Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ...

within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was

taken".

        The final decision in these proceedings was the decision of

the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 1982 not to grant

leave to appeal, whereas the application was submitted to the

Commission on 30 December 1985, that is more than six months after

the date of that decision.  Furthermore, an examination of the case

does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which

might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.

        It follows that this part of the application has been

introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

        The applicants' complaints, as far as they relate to the

proceedings concerning the taking into care of their third son

Fredrik, have been introduced within the stipulated six months period.

However, with regard to these proceedings and the judicial decisions

of which the applicants complain the Commission recalls that, in

accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to

ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the parties in

the Convention.  It is not competent to deal with an application

alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic

courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved

a possible violation of any of the rights or freedoms set out in the

Convention (see e.g.  No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222,

236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77,

Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

        In this respect the Commission first notes that the

applicants' case was examined in substance by the County

Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, the

Supreme Administrative Court refusing leave to appeal.  The applicants

have in no way substantiated their allegation that these courts were

partial.

        As regards the procedure, the Commission notes that hearings

were held before the County Administrative Court and the

Administrative Court of Appeal.  At the hearing before the County

Administrative Court the second applicant was present and at the

hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal both applicants were

present.  They were assisted by counsel and witnesses were heard,

including an expert who had issued a medical certificate.  There is no

indication that the applicants were prevented from presenting

arguments and views or that the procedure was in any other respect

unfair.

        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2.      The applicants have furthermore complained that their right to

respect for their private and family life has been interfered with in

a manner not justifiable under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

They maintain that they were indeed in a position to take proper care

of their children and that the courts have in no way established that

there was a necessity to take the children into care.  The applicants

further maintain that Swedish law does not satisfy the substantial

requirements as to the quality of the law since it is too vague and

without any indication as to the scope of the discretion conferred

upon the authorities.  They allege that their access to the children

has been arranged in such a way as to interfere with their rights

under Article 8 (Art. 8).

        Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads as follows:

"1.      Everyone has the right to respect for his private

and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.      There shall be no interference by a public authority

with the exercise of this right except such as is in

accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security, public safety

or the economic well-being of the country, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others."

        The Government submit that, as regards the complaint relating

to the taking into care of the twins, the applicants have not lodged

their application with the Commission within six months as required by Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.  They furthermore submit that, insofar as the

complaints cover also the proceedings concerning the termination of the care of

the twins, the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies.  Alternatively,

the Government maintain that the complaint concerning the twins is manifestly

ill-founded.

        In respect of the taking into care of Fredrik the Government

contend that the applicants' complaint is manifestly ill-founded.  The

decision to take Fredrik into care and place him in a foster home,

while constituting an interference with the applicants' right to

respect for their private and family life, is justified under the terms of

Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).  The measures taken were in accordance with the

law and their aim was "the protection of health and morals" and of "the rights

and freedoms of others".  As to the question whether the interference was

necessary within the meaning of the Convention the Government submit that an

area must be provided in a case like the present within which no violation can

be considered to have occurred, although the national courts' decisions may be

questioned, provided that there are fair reasons for the conclusion at which

they arrived. The Commission's examination should be limited to establishing

that the decisions taken by the domestic courts have not been based on

irrelevant circumstances, unacceptable criteria or standards or other reasons

which cannot be considered to be fair.

        The Government further state that the decisions and judgments

concerning Fredrik could have been more detailed in analysing the evidence,

certificates and memoranda submitted by the parties, but that a closer

examination of the case clearly explains the stand the courts have taken when

applying the law and that those circumstances are relevant as a base for

examining whether the standards according to which the case has been examined

are acceptable and whether the examination as a whole can be considered fair.

The courts have examined the case and found it necessary to take Fredrik into

care. This interference with the applicants' private and family life was

necessary also within the meaning of the Convention.

        The applicants submit that although they formally may request that the

care of their children be terminated and the children be returned to them, it

is not possible for the courts to examine the substance of their request

against the prevailing abstractions binding the courts. The applicants will not

have their children returned to them unless substantial changes are made of

Swedish law.  As the law is now construed it leaves too wide an area to the

authorities' discretion and the authorities have no guidance in the use of this

discretion.  It was not necessary within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art.

8-2) to take the applicants' children into care.  The applicants have been

given no possibility to prove their abilities as parents and to refute the

abstract accusations they have been subjected to.  The courts are in the hands

of the experts.  Psychological observations were made of the applicants' three

children before they were six months old.  The home care aid L.P., who was

heard in the proceedings concerning the taking into care of Fredrik, stated

that there was a good relation between the boy and his parents and that she

considered that the applicants should be given the opportunity to "take care of

themselves a bit more".  The applicants maintain that, by proving their

capability of taking proper care of their fourth son Daniel, they have also

proved that the accusations against them were unsubstantiated.         As

concerns their right of access to their children the applicants submit that,

although they have never actually been barred from seeing the children there

are financial obstacles preventing them from doing so.  Their requests that the

children be allowed to stay overnight with them or travel with them have always

been rejected. This has prevented the applicants from having normal contact

with their children.

        The Commission finds that insofar as the applicants complain of the

taking into care of the twins, Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik, it is not required to

decide whether or not the facts alleged by them in support of this part of

their application disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8)

of the Convention as the applicants have again failed to comply with the six

months rule.  The final decision regarding the applicants' complaint relating

to the taking into care of Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik is the decision of the

Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 1982 whereby leave to appeal was

refused.  The present application was submitted to the Commission on 30

December 1985, that is more than six months after the date of this decision.

Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any

special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of

that period.

        It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of

time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the

Convention.

        Furthermore, insofar as the applicants complain of the refusal of the

Social Council to terminate the care of Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik and of the

arrangements made with regard to their right of access to all of their children

in care, the Commission is again not required to decide whether or not the

facts alleged by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have

been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international

law.

        In the present case the applicants have not appealed against the

decisions of the Social Council of 14 December 1982, 14 December 1983 and 28

October 1987 not to terminate the care of the twins. Furthermore, it does not

appear that the applicants have taken any steps to have their access to the

children arranged according to their wishes or appealed against any decisions

as regards access, with the exception of the Social Council's decision of 9

November 1981 which, however, was overruled in their favour by the

Administrative Court of Appeal on 15 April 1982.  Accordingly the applicants

have failed to show that they have exhausted the remedies available to them

under Swedish law.

        Moreover, an examination of the case, as it has been submitted, does

not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have

absolved the applicants, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at their disposal.

        It follows that the applicants have not complied with the condition as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and that this part of the application

must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

The Commission finds, however, that the applicants have complied with Article

26 (Art. 26) insofar as they complain of the decision to take their third son

Fredrik into care.  The decision interfered with their right to respect for

their family life as secured by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.

It must therefore be examined whether this interference was justified under

the terms of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).  In this respect the Commission

recalls that three conditions must be satisfied: the interference must be "in

accordance with the law", it must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims

enumerated in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) and it must be "necessary in a

democratic society" for that or those legitimate aims.

        As regards the first condition, the Commission recalls its opinion in

the case (Olsson v.  Sweden, Comm.  Rep. 2.12.86, para. 139) where it found

that the text of the relevant provisions in the Swedish acts, although vague,

could not be considered as not satisfying the requirements as to the quality of

the law.  This view was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (Eur.

Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A No. 130, paras. 60-63).

Furthermore the Commission finds no indication that the decisions taken by the

courts in the present case were contrary to Swedish law.  The issue of taking

Fredrik into care was examined by the competent administrative courts up to the

Supreme Administrative Court.

        The Commission also finds that the interference had a legitimate aim

under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), namely the interests of the child, which in

this case fall under the expression "for the protection of health or morals"

and "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

        The Commission concludes that the decision to take Fredrik

into care was taken "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of

Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention and that it had a legitimate aim

(cf. also above-mentioned Olsson judgment, paras. 64-65).

        It remains to be determined whether the interference was

"necessary in a democratic society" in the interests of the child.

        According to the established case-law of the European Court of

Human Rights the notion of necessity implies that the interference

corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is

proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.  In determining whether

an interference is "necessary in a democratic society" the Commission

furthermore has to take into account that a margin of appreciation is

left to the Contracting States (cf. above-mentioned Olsson judgment,

para. 67).

        However, the Convention organs' review is not limited to

ascertaining whether a respondent State has exercised its discretion

reasonably, carefully and in good faith, and they cannot confine

themselves to considering the relevant decisions in isolation but must

look at them in the light of the case as a whole.  They must determine

whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference at issue are

"relevant and sufficient" (cf.  Olsson judgment, para. 68).

        In the present case, the applicants allege that they were in a

position to take proper care of Fredrik and that the courts have not

established that there was a necessity to take him into care.

        The Commission here recalls that both the County

Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal held oral

hearings.  The second applicant was present at both hearings and the

first applicant at the hearing before the Administrative Court of

Appeal.  The applicants were assisted by a lawyer on both occasions

and Fredrik was represented by officially appointed counsel.  The

County Administrative Court heard an expert witness, Dr.  T.Å., and the

municipal home care aid L.P.  The Court also heard the second

applicant.  Before the Administrative Court of Appeal both applicants

were heard as well as a witness, the nurse U.J..  Having regard to

these facts as well as to the reasons stated above in relation to

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, the Commission finds that, insofar as

certain procedural requirements are implicit in Article 8 (Art. 8), these

requirements were satisfied, since the applicants were involved in the

decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide them with

the requisite protection of their interests.

        As regards the taking into care the Commission recalls the

judgment of the County Administrative Court of 5 June 1985.  The Court

considered it likely that Fredrik could not get his need of

stimulation satisfied in his home environment in a manner considered

to be of basic importance for his continuing mental development.  The

Court furthermore considered that there might be a risk to Fredrik's

physical health due to the fact that his father easily becomes

aggressive.  Taking his mother's mental handicap into account, the

Court found that the applicants themselves need help in their daily

situation and that there was a danger to Fredrik's health and

development in his home environment.

        These reasons are "relevant" to a decision to take the child

into care, and in its judgment of 28 June 1985 the Administrative

Court of Appeal upheld the evaluation of the County Administrative

Court, referring, inter alia, to the applicants' mental state which

would make it impossible for them, in a long term perspective, to give

Fredrik adequate care.

        However, a decision to take a child into care must be

supported by sufficiently sound and weighty considerations since such

a decision is in any case a serious interference with the right

protected under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1).  In order to determine whether in

the present case the reasons can be considered "sufficient" for the

purposes of Article 8 (Art. 8), the Commission must further examine the

evidence that was available to the courts.

        In this respect the Commission recalls that a large number of

reports and certificates, issued inter alia by the social authorities,

by doctors and psychologists, were available to the courts when they

considered the care issue, including to some extent the documents

concerning the taking into care of Fredrik's twin brothers.

        The conclusion of those reports and certificates is that the

applicants' capacity as parents was such that they could not satisfy

their child's basic needs.  The expert witness heard by the County

Administrative Court supported the findings of the written opinions

submitted.  The Commission notes that the Courts' judgments were not

founded only on the above documentation but that the judges, on the

basis of the hearings held before them, had the benefit of their own

impressions of the persons involved.

        The Commission notes that a more favourable view on the

applicants' capability to take care of a child appears from the

certificates concerning the applicants' relation to their son Daniel,

who is living with them in Norway.  These are documents, however,

which could not be considered by the Swedish courts in the proceedings

concerning the taking into care of Fredrik as they refer to the

situation after those proceedings had been terminated.  Nor can they

be taken into account in the Commission's examination as to whether

the courts, by their judgments, interfered with the applicants' right

to respect for their family life in an unjustifiable manner.

        Although the opinions of experts and witnesses varied to some

extent, especially as concerns the applicants' practical ability to

take care of Fredrik, the Commission finds that the decision to take

him into care was supported by "sufficient" reasons and that, having

regard to their margin of appreciation, the Swedish authorities were

entitled to think that it was necessary to take him into care.

Accordingly the Commission concludes that this decision can be

regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8

para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention in the interests of the child.

        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission         Acting President of the Commission

    (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (J.A. FROWEIN)