PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. LOUCAIDES

       As regards the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention the

Commission recalled in its decision on admissibility (Appendix II,

p. 48),

       "[w]here the complaint concerns a continuing situation it falls

       within the Commission's competence ratione temporis,

       notwithstanding the fact that the situation complained of is a

       consequence of a decision which was made or an occurrence which

       took place prior to the entry into force of the Convention with

       regard to the Contracting Party  (No. 214/56, Dec. 9.6.58,

       Yearbook 2 p. 214 (234)" .

       The Convention entered into force with regard to Finland on

10 May 1990, while the applicant's custody of S. remained unenforced

as from the end of 1985 up to 25 September 1991. During this period he

only met S. once, namely at the meeting arranged by the social

authorities on 14 January 1987. Following the transfer of custody to

R.N. and S.N. in 1991 the visiting rights then granted to the applicant

also remained unenforced.

       I conclude that, although part of the decisions concerning the

applicant's parental rights were rendered prior to 10 May 1990, the

non-enforcement of the decisions must be considered a continuing

situation falling, as a whole, within the Commission's competence

ratione temporis.

       As regards the non-enforcement prior to 10 May 1990 I note that

an administrative fine of 2.000 FIM for each of R.N. and S.N. was

imposed on 30 September 1986. This was never followed by a payment

order. Another fine was imposed on 10 March 1987 in the amount of

8.000 FIM for each of R.N. and S.N. On 7 May 1987 R.N. and S.N. were

ordered to pay only 2.000 FIM each of this fine. The Commission has not

been informed of any enforcement of this payment order.

       This background of events reinforces the view that the necessary

will on the part of the authorities of the respondent State to enforce

the parental rights of the applicant was lacking.

       I conclude that the non-enforcement of the parental rights of

the applicant was a continuing breach of his right to respect for his

family life.

       I also agree with the concurring opinion of Mr. Rozakis on the

question of a violation of Article 8 because of the transfer of custody

of S. from the applicant to R.N. and S.N.

       As regards the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention I agree with the opinion of the minority.

                                                        (Or. English)