DISSENTING OPINION OF J.-C. GEUS, H. DANELIUS,

               D. SVÁBY, P. LORENZEN AND E. BIELIUNAS

     We have voted against the conclusion that there has been a

violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case. Our

opinion is based on the following considerations.

     We note that, while the applicant has repeatedly demonstrated his

willingness to assume responsibility as the father of M., he has never

lived together with his daughter and her mother K.W. as a family. He

has met his daughter on a number of occasions but, for various reasons,

his contacts with her have been irregular and seem to have more or less

ceased during the last years before the District Court agreed to the

adoption.

     On the other hand, the applicant's daughter lived since her early

childhood together with her mother and M.W. and she regarded M.W. as

her father.

     It cannot have been an easy matter for the Swedish courts to

decide whether or not to grant M.W.'s request for permission to adopt

M. It is clear that that views could differ as to whether this adoption

was in M.'s best interests and whether the interference with the

applicant's right to respect for his family life which the adoption

would constitute was proportionate. However, we do not doubt that the

District Court examined the matter in a serious and thorough manner.

It held a hearing in the case, during which it heard both the applicant

and M.W. Having had the benefit of seeing and listening to the persons

involved, the District Court had a better basis than the Commission for

evaluating the situation and for deciding what would be the most

appropriate solution. There is no reason to believe that the District

Court, whose decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, misjudged the

situation or disregarded any of the legitimate interests involved.

     In these circumstances, and having regard to the margin of

appreciation which in such matters should be left to the domestic

courts, we consider that the interference with the applicant's right

under Article 8 of the Convention was in conformity with its

paragraph 2 and that, therefore, there has been no violation of Article

8 in this case.