SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. DANELIUS, JOINED BY MM. NØRGAARD,

JÖRUNDSSON, SOYER, REFFI AND CONFORTI

                (regarding Article 8 of the Convention)

       The question whether there has been a lack of respect for the

applicant's family life arises in regard, on the one hand, to the

enforcement of the applicant's custody rights and the transfer of these

custody rights to his daughter's grand-parents and, on the other hand,

to the enforcement of the applicant's rights of access to his daughter.

In the consideration of whether there has been a violation of the

Convention, it is necessary to take into account that Finland was only

bound by the Convention as from 10 May 1990. Those facts in the present

case which relate to the period before that date are therefore only

indirectly relevant as a background of the developments which occurred

after that date.

       As regards the custody of the applicant's daughter, I note that

on 30 May 1990, i.e. only a few weeks after 10 May 1990, the National

Board for Social Welfare recommended that the Social Welfare Board

should take measures in order to have the custody transferred to her

grand-parents. Proceedings regarding this question were instituted on

13 August 1990. These proceedings ended on 21 January 1992, when the

Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of

the Court of Appeal of 25 September 1991 by which the custody of the

applicant's daughter had been transferred to the grand-parents.

       I find it justified that, while these proceedings were pending,

the authorities refrained from taking measures to enforce the

applicant's custody rights and preferred to await the outcome of the

proceedings. I also consider that, in view, in particular, of the long

time during which the applicant's daughter had lived with her grand-

parents despite the applicant's custody rights which were not enforced,

the decision in 1991 to transfer the custody to the grand-parents could

reasonably be considered to have been in the daughter's best interests

and does not therefore constitute a violation of the applicant's rights

under Article 8 of the Convention.

       Long before 10 May 1990, the applicant had been granted access

rights to his daughter, although these rights had not been effectively

enforced. When, on 30 May 1990, the National Board for Social Welfare

recommended that the Social Welfare Board should take measures to have

the custody rights transferred to the grand-parents, it also

recommended that the applicant should be given rights of access to his

daughter. This was accepted by the Court of Appeal which, in its

judgment of 25 September 1991, regulated in detail the applicant's

access rights.

       However, the applicant was unable to have these rights enforced.

On 22 June 1992, he instituted enforcement proceedings and he renewed

his request for enforcement on 10 November 1992. On 31 December 1992,

the County Administrative Board ordered the grand-parents, under threat

of administrative fines, to comply with the Court of Appeal's judgment.

However, the grand-parents appealed against this decision to the Court

of Appeal where proceedings are still pending.

       Consequently, the applicant, whose rights of access have been

recognised for a long time, has not been able to have these rights

enforced. The fact that no enforcement has been possible after

10 May 1990 must be considered as particularly serious in view of the

fact that enforcement had been impossible also during a long period

before that date. Although the grand-parents have been threatened with

administrative fines, no decision to sanction their non-compliance with

the relevant court decisions by ordering them to pay those fines has

been taken. Moreover, the enforcement proceedings which the applicant

instituted on 22 June 1992 and renewed on 10 November 1992  have not

been quickly brought to an end but are still pending.

       Without expressing an opinion on what precise measures would

have been appropriate in the difficult circumstances of this case, I

consider that the Finnish authorities did not sufficiently ensure the

applicant's effective enjoyment of the rights of access which he had

been granted by the courts. By failing to do so, the authorities showed

a lack of respect for the applicant's family life. On this basis, I

conclude that Article 8 has been violated in the present case.

                                                        (Or. English)