PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. H. DANELIUS JOINED BY SIR BASIL HALL

        In the present case, two issues of length of proceedings arise,

i.e., on the one hand, with regard to the proceedings regarding the

applicants' requests for extended access to their son and for the

termination of public care (paras. 105-108 of the Report) and, on the

other hand, with regard to the proceedings relating to the prohibition

on removal (paras. 110-112 of the Report).

        The proceedings regarding access and the termination of care

were conducted before the Social Council, an administrative authority,

but if the Council's decisions had been unfavourable to the applicants,

they would have been able to appeal to the Administrative Courts.  The

delays in the proceedings before the Social Council, therefore, also had

an effect on the applicants' right to have their claims determined by

a court.

        The proceedings regarding the prohibition on removal were

conducted before the Administrative Courts at three different levels.

        Questions of delays in court proceedings, or in administrative

proceedings which in their turn delay the institution of court

proceedings, should normally be examined in relation to the right to

have a court hearing within a reasonable time guaranteeed by Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention.  It is true that in certain cases regarding

public care of children the length of the proceedings has been

considered "a relevant, though subsidiary, factor" in the examination

relating to Article 8 of the Convention, in particular where the

length of the proceedings had created an irreversible situation and

made it virtually impossible to return the children to their parents

(Eur.  Court H.R., W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987,

Series A no. 121-A, p. 31, para. 69 and R. v. the United Kingdom

judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121-C, p. 121, para. 74).

        In the present case, these elements are not present.  The time

element in the proceedings raised, according to the Commission's

analysis of the case, separate issues of respect for the applicants'

family life (paras. 105-108 and 110-112 of the Report) and was not a

subsidiary factor to be dealt with together with other more important

factors.  Nor did the length of the proceedings cause an irreversible

situation, since the applicants' son was in fact returned to them in

the end.

        I therefore consider that the said issues should be examined

under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.  My conclusions are that

the delays in the proceedings regarding extended access and the

termination of public care were a breach of Article 6 para. 1,

whereas the proceedings regarding the prohibition on removal did not

constitute such a breach.  My reasons for reaching these conclusions

are the same as those upon which the Commission based its conclusions

that in regard to the first proceedings there had been a lack of

respect for the applicants' family life, whereas with regard to the

second proceedings there had been no such lack of respect.

        Having considered these issues under Article 6 para. 1, I

find no separate issue arising under Article 8 of the Convention with

regard to the length of the said proceedings.

        For the said reason, I voted against the conclusion in para. 153

of the Report.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date                    Item

__________________________________________________________________________

9 June 1986             Introduction of the application.

2 December 1986         Registration of the application.

13 March 1987           Commission's decision not to take any action

                        under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.

Examination of the admissibility

7 May 1987              Commission's deliberations and decision to

                        invite the Government to submit observations

                        in writing.

4 September 1987        Government's observations.

17 November 1987        Applicants' observations in reply.

16 October 1987         Commission's decision to grant legal aid.

6 July 1988             Commission's deliberations and decision to

                        invite the parties to a hearing on the

                        admissibility and merits of the application.

4 October 1988          Hearing on admissibility and merits.  The

                        parties were represented as follows:

                        Government:    Mr.  Hans Corell

                                       Mrs.  Christina Bergenstrand

                                       Mr.  Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona

                        Applicants:    Mr.  Lennart Hane

                                       Mrs.  Gunilla Hane

                                       The applicants were also present.

4 October 1988          Decision to declare the application

                        admissible.

Examination of the merits

4 October 1988          Commission's deliberations on the merits.

11 March, 8 July,       Commission's consideration of the state of

7 October and           proceedings.

9 December 1989

6 and 12 March 1990     Commission's deliberations on the merits.

15 March 1990           Commission's further deliberations on the

                        merits, final votes and adoption of the Report.