Application No. 12056/86

                      by Elisabeth and Tony HANSEN

                      against Sweden

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 4 July 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  J. C. SOYER

                  H. G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  G. BATLINER

                  J. CAMPINOS

             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  C. L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 18 February 1986

by Elisabeth and Tony Hansen against Sweden and registered on

24 March 1986 under file No. 12056/86;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows.

        The first applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1954.  The

second applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1936.  They are married

and reside at Hisingsbacka, Sweden.  Before the Commission they are

represented by Mr.  Göran Bergendahl, a lawyer practising in

Gothenburg.

        The application concerns the taking into care of the

applicants' daughter, born in 1979.

        The applicants became involved with the social authorities of

Gothenburg (Göteborgs socialförvaltning) in 1978 owing to their need

for financial assistance.  They have since then been in continuous need

of social assistance.  The social authorities discovered a drinking

problem in the family which, however, denied any such thing and the

further development of the relationship between the applicants and the

social authorities became more and more strained.

        The applicants' daughter attended a day nursery on a part-time

basis and the rest of the time she was looked after exclusively by her

parents.  The essentials of the case for the Social District Council's

(sociala distriktsnämnden) application for custody, as set out below,

may be summarised as follows.

        In March 1982, the staff from the day nursery where the

applicants' daughter was placed contacted the social authorities

reporting that the applicants, and in particular the first applicant,

had on several occasions smelled of alcohol on coming to fetch their

daughter.  In December 1982 the nursery staff voiced serious concern

at the applicants' daughter's behaviour.  Renewed contact with the

family brought on a denial that there was any problem and the child

then failed to attend the day nursery for several months.

        Subsequently the staff of the nursery contacted the social

authorities repeatedly, reporting that the child showed signs of

abnormal behaviour, that the first applicant often appeared to have

been drinking and some times bore signs of physical abuse when she

collected her daughter in the afternoons.  Over the past three years,

the social authorities received repeated telephone calls from persons

wishing to remain anonymous, concerning perpetual drinking parties in

the applicants' apartment and stating that the child was being

maltreated at home.  For a number of years the first applicant engaged

in prostitution and there was strong suspicion that this also occurred

in the home.  Representatives of the landlords reported that the

applicants often had rowdy parties and that they behaved in a drunken

disorderly fashion.  The applicants had been without work for a long

period of time and lived completely on social assistance.

        On the basis of this information, it was considered that the

applicants' child did not receive the special care it needed and

the matter was reported to the Chairman of the Social District Council

No. 4 of Gothenburg.  Pursuant to Section 6 of the 1980 Act with

Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda

bestämmelser om vård av unga), the Chairman decided, on 18 January

1985, to take the applicants' daughter into care on a provisional

basis.

        This provisional decision was subsequently brought before the

Regional Administrative Court (länsrätten) which upheld the decision

on 30 January 1985.

        On 12 February 1985 a meeting was held in the Social District

Council in order to determine whether an application should be lodged

with the Regional Administrative Court for the taking into care of the

applicants' daughter on a non-provisional basis.  The applicants were

present at this meeting and they were assisted by counsel.  They

maintained that it was not necessary to take their daughter into

care and agreed to accept assistance from the social authorities.

Nevertheless the Social District Council decided on the same day to

apply to the Regional Administrative Court for the taking into care of

the applicants' daughter.  The Court held a hearing in the case on

1 March 1985 during which the Social District Council maintained the

necessity to take the applicants' daughter into care.  This view was

supported by the appointed counsel for the child, whereas the

applicants, who were present at the hearing and assisted by counsel,

maintained that no facts, conflicts or problems were at hand, which

could substantiate the Social District Council's allegations.

        In the case a report was submitted by the deputy chief surgeon

at the Gothenburg child and youth psychiatric department (barn- och

ungdomspsykiatriska mottagningen i Göteborg).  According to the

report, the applicants' daughter was markedly tense and had "ticks"

(involuntary twitching) taking the form of twitchings of the head,

snorting and sighing.  The report furthermore mentioned that it was

likely that the symptoms of disorder manifested by the applicants'

daughter were connected with her home situation.  The parents, who

wanted to take proper care of their child, failed to do so because of

problems regarding their ability to give the child the security and

care she needed.

        The Regional Administrative Court also had at its disposal a

written statement from the psychologists K.N. and E.P.-F.  The former

was moreover heard as an expert witness in the oral proceedings before

the Court.  She concluded that the child's situation seemed to have

deteriorated over the years.  Both her emotional and intellectual

development were clearly affected and if the child's further

development was not to be jeopardised there should be a change in her

overall life situation.

        Following the hearing, the Regional Administrative Court

decided in favour of the Social District Council's application.  In

its judgment the Court stated the following:

"The enquiry reveals that (the applicants' daughter) had shown

signs of psychic disorder for a long time and that these

disorders had worsened as the years went by.  The situation is

now that (the child) needs expert care aimed at correcting the

disorders so that her future health and development will not be

jeopardised.

All the allegations concerning (the applicants') situation as

regards their drinking habits, physical abuse, prostitution,

aversion to work and lifestyle are perhaps not properly supported

by evidence.  Nor has it been shown that any of the stated

circumstances alone should be of decisive significance as regards

their ability to take care of (their daughter).  However, taken

together, all these circumstances paint a picture of their overall

life situation, which shows that the home is not a good setting

for (their daughter) to grow up in.  It should be clearly

understood that there is a connection between (the child's)

psychic disorders and her home conditions.

(The applicants) give the clear impression that they lack proper

insight into (their daughter's) state of health.  It cannot be

anticipated for the moment that they will be able to see beyond

their own problems and change their way of life, so that (their

daughter's) special need for care can be dealt with.  If she

was now to be looked after at home, her health and development

would be put at risk.  The requisite conditions exist for taking

(the child) into care in accordance with the Act with Special

Provisions on the Care of Young Persons."

        The applicants appealed against this judgment to the

Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Gothenburg.  The

Court held a hearing in the case where the applicants were present and

assisted by counsel.  As in the lower court, their daughter was

also represented by counsel before the Administrative Court of Appeal.

The Administrative Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case on

20 June 1985.  The judgment reads as follows:

"In the appeal to the Court of Appeal the applicants have claimed

that their daughter should not have been taken into custody under

the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons.

Among the statements made by the applicants are the following:

In its ruling the Regional Administrative Court misjudged the

situation by considering that the overall picture of their

lifestyle shows that their home is not a good setting for their

daughter to grow up in.  Further, it is untrue that they are not

able to see beyond their own problems and change their way of

life to take account of their daughter's needs or that they have

no clear idea of her state of health.  The couple deny that they

are excessive drinkers, that there is physical abuse in the home

and that they both allegedly suffer from an aversion to work.  On

some ten occasions, (the first applicant) has engaged in

prostitution, but she has now abandonded this once and for all.

She has also been in contact with the Prostitution Group.  They

were previously quite heavy drinkers.  They are now prepared and

willing to change that.  The allegation that they are averse to

work is inaccurate.  They have constantly attempted to get a

job.  This has proved difficult among other reasons because of

the long period they have been unemployed.  However, the

situation has now apparently improved further.  The first

applicant has had short-term temporary jobs at a day nursery.

Now, that is since 2 April this year, she has a steady job.  The

second applicant has also looked for work.  With various help and

assistance from the social authorities, they can now cope with

their problems and also manage to have their daughter at home.

In the light of this, living at home would appear to present

no danger to their daughter's health and development.

The Social District Council has contested the appeal.  Among the

points put forward in defence of this view were the following:

The most serious problem in (the applicants') home is their

drinking.  (The applicants) are dependent on alcohol.  They have

been drunk on various occasions when in charge of their daughter.

The employment situation is certainly difficult.  However, (the

second applicant) has not worked for eight years.

The Administrative Court of Appeal has conducted an oral hearing

in the case.  During the oral hearing, evidence has been obtained

from District Supervisers G.B. and B.S. and the principal of the

day nursery, K.S. ...  In addition (K.S.) made the following

comments:

Since she was taken into care under the Act with Special Provisions

on the Care of Young Persons (the applicants' daughter) has calmed

down.  Her 'ticks' have decreased.  She is happy at the day nursery

and at the Kyrkbyn Children's Home.  On two occasions when the

parents called to see her after she had been taken into care, they

smelled of alcohol.  After their visit, (the child) became agitated

and had more 'ticks'.  However, (the first applicant) and her

daughter get on well.

Expert evidence has also been heard from psychologists K.N. and

E.P.-F. and Deputy Chief Physician B.L.  K.N. and E.P.-F. have

upheld the views and the expert opinions regarding (the child's)

situation which they stated in the Regional Administrative Court.

E.P.-F. also added the following comments:

She has met (the child) twice since she was taken into care.  The

first occasion was at the beginning of February this year.  (The

child) was then tense and nervous and had 'ticks'.  The second

occasion was 15 May this year.  (The child) had appeared freer

and seemed well.  'Ticks' occurred only for a short time.

Among the comments made by B.L. are the following:

(The child) is less tense now.  The 'ticks' sometimes disappear,

although they vary.  (The child) is now more natural than she was

before.  It is unusual for 'ticks' to occur at such a young age.

The parental home must provide basic security.  (The child) shows

signs of disorder and has symptoms which are connected with the home

environment.  The home environment must be changed.  It is important

to bear in mind the fact that the parents continued to drink when

(the child) was in the children's home.  The parents must show that

there have been changes in the home environment.  The positive point

is (the child's) good contact with her parents.  There are no

somatic causes for the 'ticks'.  A doctor at Kyrkbyn Day Nursery,

H.E., has stated that there is no reason to suspect any organic

causes.  The home is the environment which affects the 'ticks'.

The child's legal aid solicitor and the social welfare consultant

in the County Council Social Welfare Department (länsstyrelsens

sociala funktion) have advised against the appeal.

The Administrative Court of Appeal's enquiry has confirmed the

fact that (the child) displayed signs of psychic disorder.

The disorder must be presumed to stem from her home

conditions.  The facts which have emerged concerning (the

applicants') way of life and the home environment indicate, as

the Regional Administrative Court ruled, that the home has not

been a suitable environment for (the child) to grow up in and

that (the applicants) have not been able to meet her special

needs as regards care.  The Regional Administrative Court must

therefore be regarded as having had grounds for its decision

to take (the child) into custody under the Act with Special

Provisions on Care of Young Persons.  The information which

has come to light concerning the couple's lifestyle after the

implementation of the Care Order under the Act has not to any

significant extent altered the basis of the decision of the

Administrative Court of Appeal.  The Care Order under the Act

should therefore stand."

        The applicants appealed against this judgment to the Supreme

Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which, by decision of 28 August

1985, refused to grant leave to appeal.

        Subsequent to the above decisions to take the applicants'

daughter into care, a further enquiry was conducted in the autumn of

1985.  On the basis of this, the social authorities have now

terminated the care of the applicants' daughter.  Since January 1986

she has lived with her parents.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicants allege that their rights under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention have been violated.  They maintain that the social authorities have

dealt with their case inappropriately, in particular since they were not warned

that their alleged irregular behaviour might lead to the taking into care of

their daughter.

        The applicants further maintain that their daughter was taken

into care on the basis of facts which failed to show that there was a

need for such a step.

THE LAW

        The applicants have 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.  In

particular they have pointed out that the social authorities' handling of their

case was improper and that the taking into care of their daughter was decided

upon without it having been established that there was a need to do so.

        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 Commission finds that the circumstances leading to the

taking of the applicants' daughter into care interfered with their

right to respect for their family life as ensured 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 para. 2 of Article 8 (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 of Olsson v.  Sweden (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 in

its judgment in the Olsson case (Eur.  Court H.R., Olsson judgment of

24 March 1988, Series A No. 130, paras. 60-63).

        In the opinion of the Commission, there is nothing to suggest

that the decision taken by the courts in the present case was contrary

to Swedish law.  The issue of taking the child into care was examined

by the competent administrative courts up to the Supreme Administrative

Court, which refused to grant leave to appeal.

        The Commission is furthermore of the opinion 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 falls under the expression "for

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

freedoms of others".

        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the decision

to take the applicant's child 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 thus 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 Commission recalls that the

applicants have alleged that the social authorities have handled their

case improperly and that the decision to take the child into care was

based on irrelevant circumstances.

        In this respect the Commission recalls first of all that,

subsequent to the taking into care of their daughter on a provisional

basis, the applicants met with the Social District Council on

12 February 1985 when the question of maintaining the care order was

discussed.  During that meeting the applicants were assisted by

counsel.  Furthermore, the Commission recalls that both the Regional

Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal held oral

hearings.  The applicants were present at both hearings and were

assisted by a lawyer.  Before these courts the applicants had the

possibility of presenting any views which in their opinion would

be decisive for the outcome of the case.  Having regard to these

facts, 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 Regional Administrative Court of 1 March 1985 from

which it appears that the applicants' daughter had developed signs of

psychic disorders, that there was a connection between these disorders

and her home conditions and that the applicants lacked proper insight

into their daughter's state of health.  In these circumstances, the

Court considered that the conditions in the home were such as to

constitute a danger to the child's health and development.  These

reasons are clearly relevant to a decision to take the child into care,

and in its judgment of 20 June 1985 the Administrative Court of Appeal

upheld the evaluation of the Regional Administrative Court.

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

supported by sufficiently sound and weighty considerations in the

interests of the child since it is not enough that a child would be

better off if placed in care.  In order to determine whether the

foregoing reasons can be considered sufficient for the purposes of

Article 8 (Art. 8), the Commission must further examine the circumstances in

which the decision was taken.

        In this respect the Commission recalls that a number of

reports issued inter alia by the social authorities and by medical

experts were available to the courts when they considered the care

issue.  These reports concluded that the applicants' daughter was

developing a psychic disorder which was based on the home environment.

Furthermore, the Commission recalls that the courts heard a number of

expert witnesses who all supported the findings of the written

opinions submitted.  The courts' judgments accordingly were not

founded only on the above documentation but the courts, on the basis

of the hearings held before them, furthermore had the benefit of their

own impressions of the persons involved.  Finally the Commission

recalls that the care period lasted approximately one year and that

the child now lives with her parents.

        In these circumstances the Commission finds that the decision

to take the applicants' child 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 the applicants' child 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 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

Deputy Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission

           (J. RAYMOND)                         (C. A. NØRGAARD)