CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mai 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12651/87                       by Elisabeth and Roland GRUFMAN                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 30 December 1985 by Elisabeth and Roland GRUFMAN against Sweden and registered on 19 January 1987 under file No. 12651/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 11 September 1987 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 2 November 1987;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.           The applicants are a married couple born in 1953 and 1948 respectively.   They are Swedish citizens who were formerly living in Sweden and are now living in Norway.   Mrs.   Grufman receives an early retirement pension and Mr.   Grufman a disability pension.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mr.   Lennart Hane, a lawyer practising in Stockholm .           On 28 April 1981, when still in Sweden, the first applicant gave birth to the twins Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik.   On 30 October 1981 the Chairman of the Social Council of Örebro Municipality (Örebro kommun, västra sociala distriktsnämnden) decided to take the applicants' children into care pursuant to Sections 11, 25 (a) and 29 of the 1960 Act on Child Welfare (barnavårdslagen, "the 1960 Act"). This decision was confirmed by the Social Council at a meeting of 9 November 1981.   In addition it was decided that the decision to take the children into care should be carried out immediately, that the children's residence was not to be divulged to the applicants for a period of six months and that the applicants should have no right of access to their children during that time (Section 41 of the 1960 Act).   The applicants were present at the meeting and had submitted written statements that were read out to the Council.           The Social Council's reason for the care decision was that the children had been subject to such treatment in their home that their physical health and their development were endangered.   This was caused by their father's unsuitability as a custodian and their mother's inability to educate them.   Preventive measures had been taken and proved insufficient.   Further preventive measures were considered useless.   It was feared that the applicants would disturb the care of the children during the first period of care.           The Social Council based its decision on a report of 9 November 1981 prepared by the social authorities at Örebro.   To the report a medical certificate of 2 November 1981 issued by Chief Doctor A.J-G. of the Children's Psychiatric Clinic Ringen at Örebro was attached and also a summary of the information the Care Council (omsorgsstyrelsen) at Örebro had collected on Mrs.   Grufman during the years she was registered with them.   The summary was signed by Mr. S.W., Head of Care.   The report referred to and cited from two medical certificates concerning Mr.   Grufman, of 24 September and 8 November 1979, issued by Deputy Chief Doctor J.W. and Chief Doctor L.O.N., respectively.           In the medical certificate issued by A.J-G. it is stated that the applicants are not aware of the children's needs and cannot satisfy them.   They give priority to their own needs rather than to those of the children.   Their care for the children is irregular and unvaried and they are not prepared to accept assistance with the care of the children.           From the report it appears inter alia that the social authorities already before the children were born had doubts as to the applicants' ability to take proper care of them.   Mr.   Grufman had had a drinking problem before he met his wife and had been convicted of several minor offences.   Mrs.   Grufman had been registered with the Care Council and in connection with the registration it was discussed whether she was mentally retarded.   Immediately after the children had been born municipal home care aid was provided to support the applicants and to assess their ability to care for the children. Subsequent to a decision by the Chairman of the Social District Council of 6 October 1981 to take the children into public care for investigation, it was decided, at the request of the applicants, to have the investigation carried out in their home.   A social welfare officer was placed with the applicants   between 7 and 30 October 1981 to observe the way they cared for the children and the children's development.   The observations made during this period led to the conclusion that the children's environment was unsatisfactory.   The applicants' flat was never clean.   From a hygienical point of view the children were badly cared for.   The applicants neglected the advice given by the Child Care Centre (barnavårdscentralen) and the social authorities regarding the way to care for the children.   Both parents, but especially Mrs.   Grufman, handled the children in a clumsy and uninterested way and had insufficient physical contact with them.   The children were on several occasions left crying without getting any attention.   It had occurred that Mr.   Grufman behaved in a menacing manner when he did not have his way or when somebody had a different opinion on how to care for the twins.   It was necessary to obtain police assistance when the children were taken into care on a provisional basis on 31 October 1981.           The twins were placed in a foster home at Degerfors.           Since the applicants did not consent to the decision of the Social Council the case was submitted to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Örebro for examination.           The County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case on 3 December 1981 at which the applicants were present and represented by counsel under the Legal Aid Act (rättshjälpslagen).   The children were represented by officially appointed counsel.   During the proceedings the Chief Doctor A.J-G. was heard as an expert. Furthermore the applicants were heard as well as four witnesses called by them.   In its judgment of 11 December 1981 the Court stated inter alia the following:           "In accordance with the medical opinion which A.J-G. has submitted in this case and according to her statements, the Court finds that there are serious disturbances in the relationship between the parents and the children and that the parents are unable to satisfy the important needs in order to secure to the children a satisfactory future development.   Apart from the statements made by the witnesses in this court the examination of the case shows reason for taking the children into care.   The submissions which suggest that there are no such reasons cannot in these circumstances be seen to carry such a weight that they call for another evaluation than the one the examination of the case otherwise results in.   Therefore the Court finds it established that Karl-Michael's and Jan-Erik's development is jeopardised because of Elisabeth and Roland Grufman's inability to satisfy the children's need of care.   Supportive measures have been tried without success.   Further supportive measures must be considered ineffective for the time being. Reasons for taking Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik into care are therefore at hand."         The first applicant appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping.   In a separate appeal the first applicant complained about the decision of the Social Council to restrict the applicants' right of access and not to inform them of their children's residence while in care.   This decision had been upheld by the County Administrative Court in a judgment of 11 March 1982.   On 13 April 1982 the Social Council decided, however, after a successful meeting had been arranged between the applicants, the children and the foster parents on 8 April 1982, that the applicants be allowed to visit their children in the foster home on 15 April 1982 and on 28 April 1982.           The Administrative Court of Appeal held a hearing on 31 March 1982 at which the applicants were present and the first applicant and the children represented in the same way as in the County Administrative Court.   Chief Doctor A.J-G. was heard as an expert witness.   Seven witnesses were heard at the first applicant's request.   The Court overruled the decision to restrict access and not to inform the applicants about the children's residence.   In the judgment, which was delivered on 15 April 1982, the Court pointed out that it was the Social Council's duty to co-operate with the parents in order to secure contact between the applicants and their children during the care period.           Following the hearing the Administrative Court of Appeal decided to obtain an opinion from the National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen) as to whether the observations made by the expert witness A.J-G., during her visits to the applicants' home, could reasonably form the basis of a definite statement that "a considerable risk to the children's development was at hand were they to stay with their parents".   In an opinion of 10 May 1982 the Board submitted inter alia that the measures taken by A.J-G. to obtain information about the children's situation were sufficient to enable her to make a statement.   There was no reason to question her conclusion that there would be a considerable risk to the development of the children if they were to stay with their parents.   The Board supported the care decision and considered it important that the children be placed permanently with foster parents who could function as their psychological parents.           In a judgment of 13 July 1982 the Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the County Administrative Court's decision to take the applicants' children into care, now in accordance with Section 1 second paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen   med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga, "the 1980 Act").   In its judgment the   Administrative Court of Appeal stated inter alia:           "Indeed the examination of the case does not reveal any serious deficiencies in the practical ability of Mr. and Mrs.   Grufman to take care of their children or their ability to benefit from help and assistance in this respect.   Their good intentions to take care of their children cannot be questioned.   There is also no reason which suggests that (Roland) Grufman would not refrain from the abuse of alcohol or from committing criminal acts or that he would not be socially stable in the future.   Reasons for considering him as being unable to take proper care of the children due to his previous abuse and criminal acts are therefore not at hand.   However, what appears to be serious and what the witnesses obviously did not consider or regard as being of importance are the emotional deficiencies in the personality of both spouses which Chief Doctor A.J-G. noticed and which, according to her, means that they lack the ability to satisfy important and primary needs of the children.   The circumstances pointed out by A.J-G. involve such a danger for the health and development of the children if they remain in their home as is mentioned in Section 1 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons.    The conditions for taking the children into care in accordance with the above provision are therefore fulfilled."           As to the witnesses heard at the first applicant's request the Court stated that they were friends and acquaintances of the applicants, who had visited the spouses when the children were at home.   The children had been well cared for, Mr.   Grufman had not abused alcohol or otherwise misbehaved.   He participated in the care of the children.   The spouses were happy about the children, but might have needed help with the cleaning.   A few witnesses stated that they could not understand why the children had been taken into care.           The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which, on 16 September 1982, refused to grant leave to appeal.           Following requests made by the applicants that the care of the twins be terminated the Social Council on 14 December 1982, 14 December 1983 and 28 October 1987 decided that the care should continue.           In 1984 the applicants moved to Hede in the Municipality of Härjedalen.           On 2 January 1985 the first applicant gave birth to her third son, Fredrik.   Immediately after the birth of Fredrik the social authorities commenced an evaluation and examination of the applicants' ability to take proper care of him.   The applicants received assistance from a municipal home care aid.           The social authorities' investigation resulted in a report of 29 March 1985.   Two medical certificates requested by the social authorities were attached to the report.   The certificates were issued on 20 and 22 March 1985 by Chief Doctor T.Å. and the psychologist A.N. at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic at Östersund, and Dr.   A.H. of the Hede District, respectively.           From the first certificate it appears that it had been issued after T.Å. and A.N. had met the applicants and Fredrik on two occasions, once for 15 minutes and once for 3,5 hours, and after they had read the reports made concerning the taking into care of the twins.   In the certificate it was stated that the applicants have serious difficulties in solving conflicts and that Mr.   Grufman creates conflicts in situations where there are simple solutions.   He easily gets aggressive in these situations.   Mrs.   Grufman is dominated by him.   It was furthermore stated that the Grufmans show no ability to imagine the emotional needs of the child and that it cannot be expected that their capacity as parents will improve with supportive measures or psycho-therapy.   It was concluded that the Grufmans, who did not express any wish for a change or for help, could not provide Fredrik with good emotional surroundings to grow up in.   T.Å. and A.N. suggested that, if their opinion concurred with that of other persons who had been in close contact with the applicants, Fredrik should be taken into care on a permanent basis.           Dr.   A.H. concluded:   "As concerns the question of taking the applicants' child into care I have only seen the child once and I have never visited the applicants in their home.   No physical maltreatment seems to have occurred but the spouses have until now received substantial assistance from a municipal home care aid.   Considering their apparent social immaturity and as they seem to satisfy their own immediate needs before the child's basic needs my conclusive assessment is that the spouses unfortunately lack the qualities and the capacity required in order not to make their child suffer in his home environment."           The social authorities made the following assessment in their report:   "Statements have been requested from several persons in order to obtain information about the impressions of others who have been in contact with the family, especially from those who met the family after Fredrik's birth.   I have found that the family seldom follows the advice they get as to the care of the child.   However, the most considerable insufficiency seems to be the emotional contact with the child.   The preventive measures taken have proved to be of no value as advice from people who are not members of the family mostly is met with aggression.   Further measures for the family, with Fredrik at home, must be considered as unsuitable for his future development.   The major deficiencies in the parents' ability to meet the child's needs, appear to be their inability to give priority to the child's needs and not their own, and their inability to feel related to the child."           In an opinion of 21 March 1985 given by the social worker B.O., on the first applicant's request for full disability pension, it was concluded that the spouses Grufman suffered from a considerable social handicap in addition to their lack of intellectual resources.           On the basis of these documents the Social Council of the Härjedalen Municipality on 15 April 1985 decided to take Fredrik into care on a provisional basis under Section 6 of the 1980 Act.   This decision was upheld by the County Administrative Court of Jämtland on 22 April 1985.           On 10 May 1985, the Social Council, revoking the decision on immediate care, decided that the applicants should be provided with a municipal home care aid.   However, on 13 May 1985 the Social Council filed a request with the County Administrative Court that Fredrik be taken into care pursuant to Section 1 second paragraph 1 of the 1980 Act.           The reasons for the decisions of 15 April and 10 May 1985 appear from a supplement to the report of 29 March 1985 dated 28 May 1985.   The applicants, having left Hede for a visit to Stockholm on 20 March 1985, did not return to Hede on 25 March as planned.   They had gone to Eskilstuna where they tried to find a flat.   They did not succeed and therefore went to see the second applicant's brother in Sandviken.   The brother and his wife phoned the social authorities at Sveg and expressed their concern for Fredrik. It was then decided to take Fredrik into care on a provisional basis and the applicants were reported as wanted by the police.   They were not found by the police, but through their legal counsel they informed the social authorities that they would return to Hede if the provisional care decision was revoked.   The decision was revoked and the applicants returned.           The County Administrative Court held a hearing in the case on 31 May 1985 at which the second applicant was present and the applicants were represented by counsel under the Legal Aid Act. Fredrik was represented by officially appointed counsel.   Chief Doctor T.Å. was heard as an expert witness and the municipal home care aid L.P. as a witness at the request of the applicants.   The second applicant was also heard.   L.P. considered that the applicants' relation to their child was normal and that the applicants should be allowed to take care of themselves to a greater extent.   In a judgment of 5 June 1985, which was ordered to be immediately enforceable, the Court stated inter alia the following:           "From the examination carried out by the Social Council and which constitutes the basis for the request for care, it is clear that the spouses Grufman have received continuing economic assistance from the Council since they moved to Hede.   After Fredrik's birth the family has furthermore received certain assistance with various work in the home and concerning the care of Fredrik.           Certain persons who have been in contact with the family have expressed fears as to Fredrik's health and development.   Nothing in this case shows that Fredrik   has not developed physically in a rather satisfactory manner with the help which has been given so far.   It can, however, be questioned whether the parents would have had the possibility to provide for Fredrik's basic needs of physical care without the assistance they have received.           Furthermore, the present facts suggest that the home environment has such deficiencies that Fredrik's need of stimulation cannot be satisfied in such a manner as must be considered to be of basic importance for his continuing mental development.   Fears thus exist that Fredrik in his present surroundings will not get the necessary intellectual and emotional stimulation from his parents.   Furthermore, certain circumstances have appeared which show that Roland Grufman has a deficient ability to solve occurring conflicts and that he easily becomes aggressive.   This together with his bad self-discipline can be seen as a certain risk for Fredrik's physical health.   Furthermore, Roland Grufman's   attitude towards the persons who have been in contact with the family in various ways in order to help or assist them has been such that the family risks social isolation.           Even if the witness L.P. has expressed another view, this view relates to a relatively short period of time, for which reason her statement must be evaluated with caution.           Against this background, and having regard to the fact that Elisabeth Grufman's mental handicap is of such a character that the parents themselves must be considered to be in need of help and assistance in their own daily situation, Fredrik's health and development must be considered to be in danger in his present environment. _ _ _           Having regard to what has been submitted in this case, and in particular to everything Chief Doctor T.Å. has stated concerning the parents' deficient ability to fulfil their role as parents despite the necessary assistance, the family's own suggestion concerning assistance in their home and a contact foster family seems to be unrealistic.   Having regard to this and to the fact that the law is aimed at protecting children, who risk receiving bad treatment, the Court considers that the care which the Social Council intends to arrange in this case is necessary.           In these circumstances the Social Council's request to take Fredrik Grufman into care in accordance with the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons shall be accepted."           On 7 June 1985 Fredrik was placed in the same foster home at Degerfors as his brothers.           The applicants appealed against the judgment of the County Administrative Court to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Sundsvall.   The Court held a hearing in the case on 24 June 1985 at which the applicants and Fredrik were represented in the same way as in the County Administrative Court.   The applicants were present at the hearing.   The Court heard a witness, the nurse U.J., active in a religious community in Stockholm, which runs the hotel in which the applicants were then staying.   The applicants were also heard.           In a judgment of 28 June 1985 the Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the County Administrative Court.   It stated inter alia:           "It is clear from the examination that Fredrik, during the time he spent with his parents, was healthy and developed normally.   Having regard to the fact that during that period of time the parents did not in any particular way take care of their son alone, no conclusions can be drawn from this regarding their ability to take care of their child.   However, from what has been submitted in this case concerning the spouses Grufman's mental situation it must be considered to be established that they cannot in the future secure to Fredrik the necessary care and education even if assistance is available.   The Court therefore finds that a danger to Fredrik's health and development exists if he is not taken into care."           The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which on 8 October 1985 refused to grant leave to appeal.           The applicants have made a request that the care of Fredrik be terminated.           The first applicant gave birth to a fourth son Daniel on 11 June 1986.   The applicants are now living in the municipality of Ås in Norway with Daniel.           The applicants have submitted a number of certificates from friends and neighbours in Norway issued in October 1987.   From these documents it appears that the applicants have a good relation to Daniel, who is a healthy child.   The applicants have also submitted certificates of similar contents of 29 October 1987 issued by the kindergarten Daniel attends and by a doctor.           From an opinion of 20 February 1987 given by a social welfare officer of the municipality of Ås to the Swedish social authorities, and submitted by the respondent Government, it appears that she found that the applicants have the will to take care of Daniel, but that their capacity to do so can be questioned in view of their level of maturity.   She did not find it necessary, for the time being, to take the child into care, but considered that the applicants could only manage to take care of the child in the long run if they got support from the authorities.   COMPLAINTS           The applicants invoke Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.           Under Article 6 they maintain that the tribunals deciding in their cases were not impartial.   The social authorities and the experts who expressed views as to their capacity as guardians did so on the basis not of scientific methods but of a bureaucratic pattern without any objective analysis of the facts.   The courts have long been subjected to this pattern and cannot therefore be impartial.           Under Article 8 the applicants maintain that their right to respect for their private and family life has been interfered with in a manner not justifiable under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention. The facts of the case show that they are indeed in a position to take proper care of their children and the courts have failed in their duty to establish in a proper way that there was a necessity to take their children into care.   The applicants' access to the children has been arranged in such a way as to interfere with their rights under Article 8.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 30 December 1985 and registered on 19 January 1987.         On 8 May 1987 the Commission decided to invite the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application as regards the taking into care of the applicants' children (Article 8 of the Convention).           The Government's observations were dated 11 September 1987 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated 2 November 1987.           On 18 December 1987 the Commission granted legal aid to the applicants.     THE LAW   1.       The applicants complain of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which states in para. 1, first sentence:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."           The applicants maintain that the tribunals deciding in their cases were not impartial.   The social authorities and the experts who expressed views as to their capacity as guardians did so on the basis of a bureaucratic pattern which is not founded on any objective analysis of the facts.   The courts have long been subjected to this pattern and cannot therefore offer the parties an impartial procedure.           As regards the proceedings concerning the taking into care of the twins Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik the Commission , however, is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".           The final decision in these proceedings was the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 1982 not to grant leave to appeal, whereas the application was submitted to the Commission on 30 December 1985, that is more than six months after the date of that decision.   Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.           It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.           The applicants' complaints, as far as they relate to the proceedings concerning the taking into care of their third son Fredrik, have been introduced within the stipulated six months period. However, with regard to these proceedings and the judicial decisions of which the applicants complain the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the parties in the Convention.   It is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights or freedoms set out in the Convention (see e.g.   No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).           In this respect the Commission first notes that the applicants' case was examined in substance by the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court refusing leave to appeal.   The applicants have in no way substantiated their allegation that these courts were partial.           As regards the procedure, the Commission notes that hearings were held before the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal.   At the hearing before the County Administrative Court the second applicant was present and at the hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal both applicants were present.   They were assisted by counsel and witnesses were heard, including an expert who had issued a medical certificate.   There is no indication that the applicants were prevented from presenting arguments and views or that the procedure was in any other respect unfair.           It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicants have furthermore complained that their right to respect for their private and family life has been interfered with in a manner not justifiable under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention. They maintain that they were indeed in a position to take proper care of their children and that the courts have in no way established that there was a necessity to take the children into care.   The applicants further maintain that Swedish law does not satisfy the substantial requirements as to the quality of the law since it is too vague and without any indication as to the scope of the discretion conferred upon the authorities.   They allege that their access to the children has been arranged in such a way as to interfere with their rights under Article 8 (Art. 8).           Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads as follows:   "1.       Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.   2.       There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."           The Government submit that, as regards the complaint relating to the taking into care of the twins, the applicants have not lodged their application with the Commission within six months as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   They furthermore submit that, insofar as the complaints cover also the proceedings concerning the termination of the care of the twins, the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies.   Alternatively, the Government maintain that the complaint concerning the twins is manifestly ill-founded.           In respect of the taking into care of Fredrik the Government contend that the applicants' complaint is manifestly ill-founded.   The decision to take Fredrik into care and place him in a foster home, while constituting an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life, is justified under the terms of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).   The measures taken were in accordance with the law and their aim was "the protection of health and morals" and of "the rights and freedoms of others".   As to the question whether the interference was necessary within the meaning of the Convention the Government submit that an area must be provided in a case like the present within which no violation can be considered to have occurred, although the national courts' decisions may be questioned, provided that there are fair reasons for the conclusion at which they arrived. The Commission's examination should be limited to establishing that the decisions taken by the domestic courts have not been based on irrelevant circumstances, unacceptable criteria or standards or other reasons which cannot be considered to be fair.           The Government further state that the decisions and judgments concerning Fredrik could have been more detailed in analysing the evidence, certificates and memoranda submitted by the parties, but that a closer examination of the case clearly explains the stand the courts have taken when applying the law and that those circumstances are relevant as a base for examining whether the standards according to which the case has been examined are acceptable and whether the examination as a whole can be considered fair. The courts have examined the case and found it necessary to take Fredrik into care. This interference with the applicants' private and family life was necessary also within the meaning of the Convention.           The applicants submit that although they formally may request that the care of their children be terminated and the children be returned to them, it is not possible for the courts to examine the substance of their request against the prevailing abstractions binding the courts. The applicants will not have their children returned to them unless substantial changes are made of Swedish law.   As the law is now construed it leaves too wide an area to the authorities' discretion and the authorities have no guidance in the use of this discretion.   It was not necessary within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) to take the applicants' children into care.   The applicants have been given no possibility to prove their abilities as parents and to refute the abstract accusations they have been subjected to.   The courts are in the hands of the experts.   Psychological observations were made of the applicants' three children before they were six months old.   The home care aid L.P., who was heard in the proceedings concerning the taking into care of Fredrik, stated that there was a good relation between the boy and his parents and that she considered that the applicants should be given the opportunity to "take care of themselves a bit more".   The applicants maintain that, by proving their capability of taking proper care of their fourth son Daniel, they have also proved that the accusations against them were unsubstantiated.          As concerns their right of access to their children the applicants submit that, although they have never actually been barred from seeing the children there are financial obstacles preventing them from doing so.   Their requests that the children be allowed to stay overnight with them or travel with them have always been rejected. This has prevented the applicants from having normal contact with their children.           The Commission finds that insofar as the applicants complain of the taking into care of the twins, Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik, it is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by them in support of this part of their application disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as the applicants have again failed to comply with the six months rule.   The final decision regarding the applicants' complaint relating to the taking into care of Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik is the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 September 1982 whereby leave to appeal was refused.   The present application was submitted to the Commission on 30 December 1985, that is more than six months after the date of this decision. Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.           It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.           Furthermore, insofar as the applicants complain of the refusal of the Social Council to terminate the care of Karl-Michael and Jan-Erik and of the arrangements made with regard to their right of access to all of their children in care, the Commission is again not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law.           In the present case the applicants have not appealed against the decisions of the Social Council of 14 December 1982, 14 December 1983 and 28 October 1987 not to terminate the care of the twins. Furthermore, it does not appear that the applicants have taken any steps to have their access to the children arranged according to their wishes or appealed against any decisions as regards access, with the exception of the Social Council's decision of 9 November 1981 which, however, was overruled in their favour by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 15 April 1982.   Accordingly the applicants have failed to show that they have exhausted the remedies available to them under Swedish law.           Moreover, an examination of the case, as it has been submitted, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicants, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at their disposal.           It follows that the applicants have not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   The Commission finds, however, that the applicants have complied with Article 26 (Art. 26) insofar as they complain of the decision to take their third son Fredrik into care.   The decision interfered with their right to respect for their family life as secured by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.   It must therefore be examined whether this interference was justified under the terms of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).   In this respect the Commission recalls that three conditions must be satisfied: the interference must be "in accordance with the law", it must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) and it must be "necessary in a democratic society" for that or those legitimate aims.           As regards the first condition, the Commission recalls its opinion in the case (Olsson v.   Sweden, Comm.   Rep. 2.12.86, para. 139) where it found that the text of the relevant provisions in the Swedish acts, although vague, could not be considered as not satisfying the requirements as to the quality of the law.   This view was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A No. 130, paras. 60-63). Furthermore the Commission finds no indication that the decisions taken by the courts in the present case were contrary to Swedish law.   The issue of taking Fredrik into care was examined by the competent administrative courts up to the Supreme Administrative Court.           The Commission also finds that the interference had a legitimate aim under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), namely the interests of the child, which in this case fall under the expression "for the protection of health or morals" and "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".           The Commission concludes that the decision to take Fredrik into care was taken "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention and that it had a legitimate aim (cf. also above-mentioned Olsson judgment, paras. 64-65).           It remains to be determined whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" in the interests of the child.           According to the established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.   In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society" the Commission furthermore has to take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (cf. above-mentioned Olsson judgment, para. 67).           However, the Convention organs' review is not limited to ascertaining whether a respondent State has exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith, and they cannot confine themselves to considering the relevant decisions in isolation but must look at them in the light of the case as a whole.   They must determine whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference at issue are "relevant and sufficient" (cf.   Olsson judgment, para. 68).           In the present case, the applicants allege that they were in a position to take proper care of Fredrik and that the courts have not established that there was a necessity to take him into care.         The Commission here recalls that both the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal held oral hearings.   The second applicant was present at both hearings and the first applicant at the hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal.   The applicants were assisted by a lawyer on both occasions and Fredrik was represented by officially appointed counsel.   The County Administrative Court heard an expert witness, Dr.