FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 47250/99 by E.P. against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 April 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 March 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, E.P., is a Finnish national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Helsinki. He is represented before the Court by Mr Sami Heikinheimo, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The respondent Government are represented by Mr Arto Kosonen, director in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant divorced his wife, K., in 1990. A voluntary agreement concerning his access to his son, M. (born on 20 May 1988), was reached according to which he would meet his son approximately twice a month and during school holidays. The agreement was ratified by the District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt ) on 30 November 1990.

In the autumn of 1991 K., inter alia , reported to the police that she suspected that the applicant was sexually abusing M.

On 16 January 1992, a report was issued by a hospital finding that E.P. had sexually abused M.

M. was taken into public care on 23 January 1992 by an emergency care decision issued by the Social Director of the Social Office of Helsinki and placed with his mother K. The Western Section of the Helsinki Social Welfare and Health Board ( sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunta, social- och hälsovårdsnämnden ) prolonged the public care twice without providing for any access by the applicant to his son. E.P. did not meet M. at all during the time he was in public care.

On 17 February 1992 K. requested the District Court of Helsinki to prevent the applicant's access to M. On 2 March 1992 the District Court issued a preliminary decision according to which E.P. was not allowed to meet M. until the court had given its final decision in the case.

On 25 January 1993, the District Court gave its final decision, according to which the applicant was allowed to meet M. under supervision every second Friday of each month between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. K. appealed against the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeal ( hovioikeus, hovrätt ) of Helsinki which, on 7 October 1993, upheld the District Court's decision.

The applicant was charged with the sexual abuse of his son before the District Court of Helsinki which, on 15 September 1993, convicted him as charged. He appealed to the Court of Appeal of Helsinki which, on 6 July 1995, quashed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeal stated in its judgment that the allegations made by K. were linked to her aim to restrict, even prevent, the applicant's access to M. Several specialists who did not support the hospital's findings in respect of the alleged abuse, had been heard before the Court of Appeal. On 24 October 1995, the Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ) refused K. leave to appeal.

The applicant did not meet M. during the time the criminal proceedings were pending against him, except on a few occasions.

On 29 September 1993, the City Administrative Court ( maistraatti, magistrat ) of Helsinki fixed an administrative fine ( uhkasakko, vite ) of FIM FIM 10,000 (approximately 1,680 Euros) in respect of any refusal by K. to allow access.

When K. did not allow access, the applicant requested the County Administrative Board of Uusimaa to order K. to pay the above-mentioned administrative fine and to set a new fine. His request was refused. After the applicant's second request the Board ordered, on 2 August 1995, that K. pays FIM 3,000 and set a new administrative fine of FIM 10,000. The applicant again requested that K. be ordered to pay the fine as she still refused to allow him access to M. The request was rejected.

On 16 April 1996, the applicant requested the District Court of Helsinki that the custody of M. be transferred to him or that he be granted unsupervised access to M.

On 10 January 1997 the District Court issued an interim decision according to which the applicant was allowed to meet with M. under supervision twice per month at a social services' child care unit.

As access still did not take place, the applicant requested that the District Court's preliminary ruling be enforced. On 4 July 1997 his request was rejected by the District Court, which found that the meetings had not been carried out because of M.'s reluctance to meet with his father.

On 2 December 1997 the District Court decided that M. should continue to live with his mother and that the applicant be allowed to meet with M. under supervision once every second month at a certain meeting place.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Helsinki which on 12 May 1998 varied contact to once per month.

The Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on 23 September 1998.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, that he had only been allowed to meet with his son under supervision and that his access had been severely limited.

PROCEDURE

On 21 March 2002 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints by 14 June 2002. Following the request of the Government this time was extended to 19 June 2002. On 19 June 2002 the Government submitted its observations on admissibility and merits.

By letter dated 1 July 2002, the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 13 August 2002. Copies of the annexes to the Government's observations were sent to the applicant on 8 July 2002.

By letter dated 15 October 2002, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his client's observations had expired on 13 August 2002 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court notes that on 15 October 2002 the applicant's representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his client's written observations had expired and warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court's list. The applicant's representative has not submitted any reply to the Court. In fact, his only letter to the Court is the original application dated 23 March 1999.

The Court considers that in the circumstances the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.

Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Michael O'boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President