PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER, JOINED BY JUDGES RUSSO AND JUNGWIERT

(Translation)

In our opinion, there has been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life both as regards custody and as regards access, and in respect of the latter since 21 October 1993 as well as before then.

Over many years the Finnish authorities were faced with and tolerated the prolongation of a situation which they had on many occasions noted to be unlawful and which they were accordingly under a duty to bring to an end [*] . On each occasion they yielded in the face of the grandparents ’ persistent obstination and thus enabled them to create a fait accompli which the authorities eventually resigned themselves to endorsing as regards both custody and access.

Having thus brought upon themselves this capitulation on both fronts, they may well have thought that matters had got to such a point that it was no longer in the child ’ s interests to go on trying to remedy the situation.

The fact remains nevertheless that ultimately the authorities deprived the applicant of the exercise of rights which naturally vested in him as father, although they had previously recognised on numerous occasions tha t he should not be denied them [*]  .

Far from stopping the infringement of these rights, they thus permanently put a seal on it.

[*]  The case is numbered 50/1993/445/524.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   Note by the Registrar.  The declaration dates from 10 May 1990, which is also the date of ratification by Finland of the Convention.

[*]  Note by the Registrar.  For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 299-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

[*]  No distinction needs to be made between the various authorities which intervened in the case; they all engage the respondent State's responsibility.

[*]   See, in particular, as regards access, paragraphs 10, 12, 25 and 29, and as regards custody, paragraphs 14, 16, 18, 22, 24 and 27 of this judgment.