CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 juin 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 }  In the Eriksson case*,   _______________ *   Note by the Registrar.   The case is numbered 11/1988/144/209.    The second figure indicates the year in which the case was    referred to the Court and the first figure its place on the list    of cases referred in that year; the last two figures indicate,    respectively, the case's order on the list of cases and of    originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the    Court since its creation. _______________   The European Court of Human Rights, sitting in plenary session pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules of Court and composed of the following judges:           Mr R. Ryssdal, President,         Mr J. Cremona,         Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,         Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,         Mr F. Gölcüklü,         Mr F. Matscher,         Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha,         Mr L.-E. Pettiti,         Mr B. Walsh,         Sir Vincent Evans,         Mr R. Macdonald,         Mr C. Russo,         Mr R. Bernhardt,         Mr A. Spielmann,         Mr J. De Meyer,         Mr J. A. Carrillo Salcedo,         Mr N. Valticos,         Mr S. K. Martens,         Mrs E. Palm,         Mr I. Foighel,   and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar,   Having deliberated in private on 22-23 February and on 22-23 May 1989,   Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:   PROCEDURE   1.       The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 13 September 1988 and by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden ("the Government") on 8 November 1988, within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention").   It originated in an application (no. 11373/85) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Swedish national, Mrs Cecilia Eriksson, acting on behalf of herself and of her daughter Lisa Eriksson, on 7 December 1984.   The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Sweden recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).   The purpose of the Government's application and of the request was to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 6 para. 1, 8 and 13 (art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 13) of the Convention and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).   2.       In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings pending before the Court and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).   3.       The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included ex officio Mrs E. Palm, the elected judge of Swedish nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)).   On 29 September 1988, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other five members, namely Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr C. Russo, Mr R. Bernhardt and Mr N. Valticos (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).   4.       Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5).   On 15 December 1988, having consulted - through the Registrar - the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicants, he decided that there was no need at that stage for memorials to be filed (Rule 37 para. 1) and directed that the oral proceedings should commence on 20 February 1989 (Rule 38).   On 16 January 1989 the Registrar received the applicants' claims under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention and certain documents relating to the domestic proceedings.   5.       On 26 January 1989 the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court (Rule 50).   6.       The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting immediately beforehand.   There appeared before the Court:   (a)   for the Government        Mr H. Corell, Ambassador,         Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular         Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,        Agent;        Mr L. Lindgren, Legal Adviser,         Ministry of Health and Social Affairs,        Mr C.-H. Ehrencrona, Legal Adviser,         Ministry for Foreign Affairs,        Mrs I. Wetter, Legal Counsel for Lidingö          Municipality,                                Advisers;   (b)   for the Commission        Mrs G. H. Thune,                                 Delegate;   (c)   for the applicants        Mrs S. Westerberg, lawyer,                       Counsel.   The Court heard addresses by Mr Corell for the Government, by Mrs Thune for the Commission and by Mrs Westerberg for the applicants, as well as their replies to its questions.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.       THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE   7.       Mrs Cecilia Eriksson and her daughter Lisa Eriksson were born, respectively, in 1942 and on 24 February 1978 and are both Swedish citizens.    In January 1979 Cecilia Eriksson married Lisa's father and in January 1981 they also had a son, Jonas.   They divorced in February 1986 and Cecilia was granted the custody of both children. Since March 1978, Lisa has been living in a foster home at Oskarström. Her mother resided first in Köttkulla, near Ulriceham, but in 1987 she moved to Köping.   A.   The taking of Lisa Eriksson into public care and her mother's efforts to have care terminated   8.       On 23 March 1978 the Southern Social District Council (södra sociala distriktsnämnden) of Lidingö ("the Social Council") decided that Lisa should be taken into care pursuant to sections 25(a) and 29 of the Child Welfare Act 1960 (barnavårdslagen 1960:97 - "the 1960 Act"; see paragraph 36 below) on the ground that the conditions in the home were unsatisfactory.   She was placed in the foster home at Oskarström.   At that time the mother, Cecilia Eriksson, had personal difficulties. She had been convicted for dealing in stolen goods and for possession of narcotics and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment.   Later, while in prison, Cecilia Eriksson went through a religious conversion and she is now a member of the Philadelphia congregation (Pentecostal movement).   9.       In May 1980 the Social Council rejected an application by Cecilia Eriksson for the termination of the care of her daughter.   Her appeal to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Stockholm was dismissed on 22 October 1981 as was, on 11 March 1982, her further appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm.   10.      On 1 January 1982 the public care of Lisa under the 1960 Act was transformed into care pursuant to section 1(1) of the 1980 Act containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen 1980:621 med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga - "the 1980 Act"; see paragraph 36 below).   11.      In March 1982 Cecilia Eriksson again applied to the Social Council requesting that care be terminated.   She also requested permission to meet Lisa in her home in Köttkulla.   Both requests were rejected and Cecilia Eriksson appealed to the County Administrative Court.   On 3 November 1982 the court dismissed the appeal concerning the question of care since there had not been sufficient preparatory contacts between Lisa and her natural parents; it referred the access question back to the Social Council for reconsideration.   Cecilia Eriksson appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   B.   The termination of the public care - the prohibition on removal and the regulation of access   12.      However, on 21 January 1983 the Social Council found that there were no longer any reasons for care under the 1980 Act and decided:   (a)   that, with effect from 15 February 1983, the care of Lisa should terminate in accordance with section 5(1)(a) of the 1980 Act;   (b)   to prohibit until further notice, pursuant to section 28 of the Social Services Act 1980 (socialtjänstlagen 1980:620; see paragraph 42 below), the natural parents from removing Lisa from the foster home (flyttningsförbud);   (c)   to request recommendations from the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic (barn- och ungdomspsykiatriska kliniken - "the Psychiatric Clinic") of Halmstad as to the contacts between Lisa and the natural parents, against the background that the long-term aim of the Social Council was that Lisa should return to the latter's home;   (d)   that the said recommendations should also contain the Psychiatric Clinic's view on a proposal that Lisa should stay with her natural parents during the summer holiday period;   (e)   that the contacts between the natural parents and Lisa should consist of one meeting before 1 March 1983, at which at least one of the foster parents and also one other person should be present.   The prohibition on removal was based on, inter alia, five medical certificates from the Psychiatric Clinic, signed by Mrs Essving-Levay, registered physician, and Mrs Gulli Tärn, curator.   According to these certificates, Lisa was deeply rooted in the foster home and her transfer to her natural parents' home would jeopardise her mental health and development.   13.      In these circumstances the Administrative Court of Appeal found no reason to examine the case further (see paragraph 11 above).   14.      On 24 February 1983 the Psychiatric Clinic, in a new medical certificate signed by the same persons, recommended access once every second month.   The certificate also stated that it was too early for Lisa to stay with her natural parents during the summer.   The recommendations were based on the assessment that the child ought to stay with the foster parents and not be moved to her natural parents in the near future.   On 31 March 1983 the Social Council decided that Cecilia Eriksson should have a right of access to Lisa in the foster home every second month.   C.   First set of proceedings challenging the prohibition on removal   15.      Cecilia Eriksson, represented by legal counsel, appealed to the County Administrative Court of Stockholm against the Social Council's decision to issue a prohibition on removal, claiming that it should be quashed or, in the alternative, limited in time.   The court held a hearing on 13 September 1983, when evidence was given by Mrs Essving-Levay, by Lisa's natural father and by an expert from the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen - "the Board").   The Board had also submitted a written opinion, which contained the following passage:   "The [Board] considers that Lisa should remain in the foster home. This proposal is, in the Board's opinion, in line with the intentions of section 28 of the Social Services Act concerning prohibition on removal.   Lisa has at present enough difficulty in living with the knowledge that she is not the foster parents' own child and with the threat that she may be forced at any time to leave the only security she knows.   Experience shows that, when Lisa grows older, she will become more curious concerning her natural parents and her own origin. Only then will she be mature enough to take the first steps towards reunification.   The [Board] considers that, until then, a removal to the natural parents would be in conflict with the child's best interest."   16.      The Social Council submitted to the County Administrative Court a further medical certificate from the Psychiatric Clinic.   This certificate, dated 7 September 1983 and signed by the same persons as the previous ones, stated, inter alia, that it was self-evident that Lisa must stay in the foster home and that her removal would involve a risk for her mental health which was not of a minor nature.   17.      On 10 October 1983 the County Administrative Court allowed the appeal in part, in that it set a time-limit of 31 March 1984 on the prohibition on removal.   The court's reasons read, inter alia, as follows:   "The natural parents' contacts with Lisa have become more regular only during the last two years, with the assistance of, among others, Mrs Essving-Levay.   Thus, in 1982 there were meetings between Lisa and the parents in June and in August at Halmstad, in September at Köttkulla and in November at Oskarström.   Lisa met her mother on some occasions during 1983, the latest being on 25 August, when the brother, Jonas, also accompanied the mother to Oskarström.   What has been established about the circumstances surrounding the meetings suggests that Cecilia Eriksson's behaviour is probably not the only reason for their not having been more frequent.   The foster parents and also the attitudes of other persons involved in the question of Lisa's removal have probably had an important influence.   In several written opinions and at the court's oral hearing, Mrs Essving-Levay has expressed the opinion that the child-psychiatric treatment of Lisa has had, as its main objective, not the promotion of Lisa's immediate removal but instead an improvement of the contacts between her and the natural parents.   At the same time it has been made clear that the psychiatric treatment of Lisa takes as its starting point Mrs Essving-Levay's opinion that Lisa should remain in the foster home.   Finally, it should be mentioned that the [Social Council], in connection with the decision under appeal, stated that Lisa's removal should be the long-term aim for its work in the matter.   Lisa has lived in the foster home since shortly after her birth. Obviously she has now, at the age of five years, strong roots in this home.   She has met her natural parents but rarely.   A removal of Lisa to the natural parents must therefore be presumed to involve considerable risks for her health.   However, it has been established, inter alia through Mrs Essving-Levay's testimony, that Lisa is a normally developed five-year-old girl who intellectually is rather over than under the average level.   This and the other circumstances make it sufficiently probable that a removal of Lisa - in any case after certain further preparatory contacts with the natural parents - will entail no more than a passing disturbance in her development. The County Administrative Court has therefore finally concluded in the case that the decision appealed against should be limited in accordance with Cecilia Eriksson's second motion.   As a result the prohibition on removal may, during a clearly limited period, be used in order to build up further the relations between Lisa and her parents."   18.      The Social Council appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm, requesting that the prohibition be unlimited in time.   Cecilia Eriksson, represented by legal counsel, submitted that the prohibition should be quashed or, in the alternative, that the judgment of the County Administrative Court should be confirmed.   19.      The Administrative Court of Appeal held a hearing at which Mrs Essving-Levay and Lisa's foster mother gave evidence.   At the court's request, the National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen) submitted, on 13 February 1984, its opinion on the risks that would be involved if Lisa were removed from the foster home.   The opinion stated, inter alia:   "As regards the assessment from a child-psychiatric point of view, it is noted that the [Psychiatric Clinic] has clearly expressed the view that Lisa should not be removed from the foster home.   This view is, in the opinion of the National Board of Health and Welfare, well-founded, as it is based on knowledge of the development and needs of children applied to Lisa's special situation.   It is the opinion of the National Board of Health and Welfare that a change of the persons responsible for the upbringing of a child always constitutes a serious interference and should not take place unless there are strong reasons, for instance that the child is badly cared for where it is living.   Child psychological research and clinical experience demonstrate that separations can imply a risk of serious mental harm to the child.   In this case Lisa, who is now six years old, has lived since a very young age in the present foster home, where she has developed well together with the adults to whom she is attached.   She is in an important phase of development and has not yet attained the age and maturity where she can decide for herself.   She ought not to be placed in a situation of choice of this kind.   There are no established contacts with the natural parents, despite the efforts which have been made.   The documents reveal that the father has not participated in the meetings with the foster parents which were arranged during 1983.   He has not seen Lisa since 1982.   In this case new facts have come to light which change the picture of the parents' home.   [The documents received from the court] showed only that the rehabilitation of the parents has developed well.   A telephone conversation with the social director of Ulriceham on 17 January 1984 disclosed that the father had lost his temporary job and had started to drink alcohol again.   He has been convicted of drunken driving and lost his driving licence.   The mother's post as a child-minder is temporary, while the usual employee is on maternity leave.   However, no criticism is levelled against the mother as regards her work.   The assessment of the National Board of Health and Welfare, against the background of the facts of this case, is that Lisa will, if moved from the foster family, be subjected to a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harm to her psychological health and development.   It is therefore important that she can remain in the foster home.   The Board finds that section 28 of the Social Services Act is applicable. However, it considers that Lisa's security from a legal point of view should be regulated for the future.   The [Social Council] should therefore, in view of the changed conditions in the natural parents' home, investigate whether the [1980 Act] has become applicable again. The [Social Council] could also consider the possibility of requesting a transfer of custody to the foster parents under Chapter 6, section 8, of the Parental Code [föräldrabalken; see paragraph 50 below]."   20.      On 6 March 1984 the Administrative Court of Appeal amended the judgment of the County Administrative Court by setting the time-limit for the prohibition on removal at 30 June 1984.   Its reasons included the following:   "The investigation in the case has revealed nothing which gives reason to doubt that Cecilia Eriksson is well suited to take care of children.   Lisa's younger brother Jonas lives in Cecilia's home where, as a municipal child-minder, she also takes care of a further child.   In its decision of 31 March 1983 the [Social Council] decided that Cecilia Eriksson should have a right of access to Lisa in the foster home every second month.   At the hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal, it appeared that one or more representatives of the [Social Council] had been present on these sporadic occasions of contact decided by the Council, that Cecilia Eriksson had never been given the opportunity on these occasions to be alone with Lisa and that the foster mother had not considered that the time was yet ripe to inform Lisa that it was her mother who was visiting the foster home.   Cecilia Eriksson has not so far been allowed to meet Lisa in her own home.   The Administrative Court of Appeal makes the following assessment. More than one year has elapsed since the [Social Council] decided that the care under the [1980 Act] should terminate and that it should promote the reunification of Lisa and her natural parents.   The investigation of the case does not suggest that Cecilia Eriksson has not accepted the [Social Council's] directives regarding her access to Lisa during this period.   The Administrative Court of Appeal finds that what the [Social Council] has done so far, by way of preparatory measures for the removal of Lisa, has obviously not been calculated to promote to any measurable extent the conditions for such a reunification.   The situation today as regards the child's removal to the parents can be regarded as no different from what it was one year ago.   Lisa still does not even know that it is her mother who visits her in the foster home.   According to the information supplied to the Administrative Court of Appeal at the hearing, the antagonism which the County Administrative Court found to exist between the foster mother and Cecilia Eriksson still prevails.   This antagonism is however, in the opinion of the [court], not necessarily an absolute obstacle to active preparatory measures for the child's transfer.   It is undisputed that a transfer of Lisa to the parents' home without preparatory measures must be presumed to carry considerable risks for her health.   Cecilia Eriksson has declared that she is well aware of these risks and that she does not wish to take the child home for good until this can be done without any risk of harming her.   Making an overall assessment of what has been established in the case, the Administrative Court of Appeal nevertheless finds that there are reasons for a temporary prohibition on removal.   In view of what has been established, it is reasonable to limit the prohibition on removal in time.   The preparatory measures which have been taken until now have, as far as it appears, not been such that the child can be removed within the time-limit prescribed by the County Administrative Court.   The Administrative Court of Appeal - which assumes that the [Social Council], in pursuing its aim of reuniting the child and the natural parents, will as soon as possible try new possibilities and intensify its work in this respect - finds that some more time for preparatory measures is necessary before the prohibition on removal can be lifted."   21.      Both Cecilia Eriksson, with the assistance of legal counsel, and the Social Council appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten).   The mother later withdrew her appeal.   22.      In its judgment of 11 October 1984 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal by the Council by confirming the latter's decision of 21 January 1983 that the prohibition should be valid until further notice.   The court gave the following reasons:   "Under section 28 of the Social Services Act, the Social District Council may, where the interests of the child so require, prohibit the guardian from removing a child from a foster home, provided that there is a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harming the child's physical or mental health if it is moved from the home.   When a child is placed in a foster home, the aim should normally be to reunite the child and his parents.   A prohibition under section 28 of the Social Services Act ought to be regarded as a temporary measure pending the arrival of an appropriate moment for moving the child from the foster home without the risk of such detrimental effects as are indicated in the said section.   The circumstances to be considered when deciding on a prohibition on removal include the child's age, stage of development, character and emotional relations; the time he has been taken care of by someone other than his natural parents; his present and prospective living conditions; and the contacts between the parents and the child whilst they were separated.   Since Cecilia Eriksson has withdrawn her appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court must determine whether the prohibition on removal should remain in force until further notice, as claimed by the [Social Council], or should be limited in time, in accordance with the position adopted by the [mother].   The question of the duration of a prohibition on removal must be examined in the light of the existing risk to the child's physical or mental health if separated from his home.   If, at the time the prohibition is issued, it is already considered, with sufficient certainty, that such a risk will not obtain after a certain date - by when certain steps may have been taken or produced their effects -, the prohibition ought to be limited until that date.   However, if it is uncertain when the child could be transferred to the parents without this involving a risk which is not of a minor nature, the prohibition ought to be in force until further notice and the question of a transfer ought to be raised again at a later stage when the risk of harming the child's health can be better assessed.   Irrespective of the duration of the prohibition, the [Social Council] is obliged to see to it that appropriate measures aimed at reuniting parents and child are taken without delay.   Such measures are required in particular when the Council, in accordance with what has just been said, has found reasons for issuing a prohibition until further notice.   Otherwise there is a great risk that the child will, in the meantime, become more closely linked to the family he is about to leave.   The efforts to establish contacts between Lisa and her natural parents, which already began some three years ago, have, as far as can be seen from the documents, not progressed beyond the point that Lisa has occasionally seen them together with her present family and generally - as a result of the [Social Council's] directives - also in the presence of an adult outsider.   The meetings have been coloured by the antagonism between the adults of the two families, and both before and afterwards, Lisa, who appears to have realised only at a late stage who her natural parents are, has shown signs of anxiety and a psychological state of strain.   The evidence concerning the intensity of Lisa's reactions clearly shows that a period of time longer than that decided by the lower courts is required before a transfer can be made.   Since appropriate measures aimed at reunification have not yet been taken there is, at the moment, no basis for setting a date on which the transfer could be made without jeopardising Lisa's mental health.   The prohibition on removal shall therefore remain in force until further notice."   D.   Second set of proceedings challenging the prohibition on removal   23.      On 28 November 1984 Cecilia Eriksson requested the Social Council that her child be returned to her custody.   This request was dismissed on 18 January 1985 on the ground that the risk for the child's mental health resulting from a removal from the foster home would be the same as when the Supreme Administrative Court delivered its judgment of 11 October 1984 (see paragraph 22 above).   24.      The mother appealed to the County Administrative Court.   She requested that the prohibition on removal be quashed and that the child be returned to her in accordance with the rules laid down in Chapter 21 of the Parental Code (see paragraphs 46-49 below). On 8 October 1985 she withdrew her appeal and, as a result, the court struck the case off its list on 23 October.   25.      According to Cecilia Eriksson, her reason for withdrawing was the following.   The Social Council had informed her through a private team of psychologists, to which the Council had turned in January 1985 to solve the question of her contacts with Lisa, that as long as she continued to bring proceedings in the matter she would not be able to meet her daughter alone, but that this would be possible - at certain weekends - if she withdrew her action.   As she knew that one condition for her being reunited with her child was that they got to know one another, she abandoned the appeal.   The Government dispute these affirmations.   According to them, Cecilia Eriksson herself, in a telephone conversation with a social welfare officer on 7 November 1985, denied that she was given any such information and stated that her counsel had "exaggerated a lot" when describing the situation as something similar to blackmail.   The Government concede, however, that the psychologists had explained to Cecilia Eriksson that meetings would be facilitated if Lisa was not faced with the threat of being forced to move to her mother as a result of the proceedings pending before the courts.   E.   The Social Council's refusal to decide the question of access   26.      On 6 August 1985, prior to withdrawing her appeal, Cecilia Eriksson lodged with the Social Council a request for access to the child every second weekend.   On 16 August the Council decided "not to decide at present on the access and the frequency of access". It noted that it could not indicate any avenues of appeal since there was no legal provision on which a decision on access could be based.   F.   Third set of proceedings challenging the prohibition on removal   27.      On 15 January 1987 Cecilia Eriksson made a fresh request to the Social Council that the prohibition on removal be lifted. On 13 March 1987 the Council decided to investigate the consequences for Lisa of such a course.   28.      On 21 May 1987 the Psychiatric Clinic sent to the Social Council a report signed by Mrs Essving-Levay and by a registered psychologist, Mrs Anne Christiansson.   It contained the following passage:   "How will Lisa react to a possible removal to Cecilia, in our opinion? She will regress.   There is a great risk that the regression will go so far that she loses contact with reality, i.e. becomes psychotic, a state which is extremely difficult to treat and is very likely to become permanent.   Inter alia, she will withdraw within herself and will not adapt herself to the world around her.   She will not be able to go to school since she will be preoccupied by her inner anxieties and chaos.   She will perceive her removal from her foster parents as very treacherous on their part.   In making this pessimistic assessment, we base ourselves on material and reactions which came to light during Lisa's therapy.   Lisa is weak, lacking in confidence and does not have adequate mental resources to cope with separation.   The conversations that we have had with her this year have been of a horrifying nature.   She says that she does not want to live if she has to move to Cecilia.   For many years she has lived in fear of being taken away from her home by Cecilia.   In our opinion Lisa must be able to stay in her foster home for good. If Lisa is to be separated from her home and moved to Cecilia, there is a risk, which is not of a minor nature, that Lisa's mental health will be irrevocably harmed; in addition there is a risk for her life."   29.      On 5 June 1987 the Social Council decided not to lift the prohibition on removal.   Cecilia Eriksson appealed to the County Administrative Court of Stockholm.   Her appeal was accompanied by an application for an immediate transfer of Lisa to her pursuant to Chapter 21, section 7, of the Parental Code (see paragraph 49 below).   30.      The County Administrative Court held a hearing on 26 August 1987 after which it decided to appoint as its expert (sakkunnig) a psychologist who had not taken part in the earlier investigations.   The decision of the court contained the following observations:   "The court's problem is that the law in force does not quite reflect the latest fundamental principles which are generally recognised within medical and behavioural sciences, namely that a child in Lisa's situation should never be transferred to his or her parent even if that parent is the child's guardian.   The true meaning of the law, especially as interpreted in certain decisions of higher courts, is that there is a very high level of tolerance regarding the suffering and the risks to which a child can be exposed when being transferred to its parent in order to let the parent have access to the child or in order for the child to be definitely transferred to the parent. These levels can be lowered if the risks for the child's future health and development after reunification are considered serious and/or likely to subsist for a considerable time.   This legal assessment also has to take into account the child's state of health before the reunification.   The court feels that it would be correct to say that the parents' right to bring up and take care of their children themselves is still recognised by the law in force to a larger extent than by modern medical and behavioural sciences, which have concern for the child's well-being as sole guideline.   When examining the case the court therefore has to strike a balance between Cecilia Eriksson's right to be with Lisa and to bring her up and the risks involved regarding Lisa's future health and development if Cecilia Eriksson's legitimate demands are met."   31.      Both the appeal concerning the prohibition on removal and the application under the Parental Code were dismissed by the County Administrative Court on 15 June 1988.   In its judgment the court stated, inter alia:   "In the opinion of the court, it is evident that high demands must be placed on the Social District Council when it comes to taking measures to facilitate meetings between Cecilia and Lisa in order to prepare the ground for a reunification.   It is therefore no excuse that the contacts between the persons involved, the authorities and the personnel giving treatment, have been strained.   Passivity is, by way of example, shown by the fact that the Council has taken no measure in view of the deteriorating relations between Cecilia Eriksson and Söderling-Gard [a family consultant engaged by the Social Council]. Söderling-Gard has expressed the opinion that Cecilia Eriksson should never get Lisa back and she has been engaged to convince Cecilia Eriksson of that ...   It is remarkable that the Council did not in these circumstances, which must have been obvious to it for a long time, take any measures to ensure that Söderling-Gard would either act herself in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court or otherwise engage someone else in order to ensure that this was effectively done.   The Council has not taken active measures, as intended, to promote access and reunification effectively.   By not doing so the Council has, on the contrary, contributed to reducing the possibilities of lifting the prohibition on removal.   The Council has rather, by its relative passivity, achieved the result that the prohibition on removal has become self-fulfilling."   32.      An appeal by Cecilia Eriksson against the judgment of the County Administrative Court to the Administrative Court of Appeal was dismissed in a judgment of 31 October 1988.   On 9 December 1988 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected her application for leave to appeal against the latter judgment.   G.   The request for a transfer of custody to the foster parents   33.      The Social Council introduced an action before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Sjuhäradsbygden requesting that the custody of Lisa be transferred to the foster parents pursuant to Chapter 6, section 8, of the Parental Code (see paragraph 50 below).   The court held a hearing on 10 October 1987, after which it ordered that the competent Social Council should submit an opinion.   The court also rejected the Social Council's request for an interim order, pending the final judgment, that the custody of the child be transferred to the foster parents.   H.   Particulars concerning the contacts between the applicants   34.      A total of eight meetings took place between Cecilia Eriksson and Lisa between 1978, when Lisa was taken into public care, and 1983, when the care was terminated.   35.      Thereafter and up to September 1987, mother and daughter have met on 29 (according to the Government) or 25 (according to Cecilia Eriksson) different occasions, as follows: six in 1983, five in 1984, five in 1985, nine in 1986 and at least four in 1987 (according to the Government).   Cecilia Eriksson has alleged that of these meetings only four, lasting two hours each, have not been supervised by the foster parents and/or social welfare officers.   II.      RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW   A.   The Social Services Act 1980 and the 1980 Act containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons   36.      From 1 January 1982 the basic rules on public responsibility for young persons are laid down in the Social Services Act.   This Act contains provisions regarding supportive and preventive measures taken with the approval of the individuals concerned.   Decisions which had been taken under the previous legislation, the 1960 Act, and which were still in force on 31 December 1981, were considered to be decisions taken under the new legislation, whether it be the Social Services Act or the 1980 Act.   1.   Compulsory care   37.      Where the parents do not give their consent to the necessary measures, compulsory care may be ordered under the 1980 Act.   Section 1, paragraphs 1 and 2, of this Act read:   "Care is to be provided pursuant to this Act for persons under eighteen years of age if it may be presumed that the necessary care cannot be given to the young person with the consent of the person or persons having custody of him and, in the case of a young person aged fifteen or more, with the consent of the young person.   Care is to be provided for a young person if   1.       lack of care for him or any other condition in the home entails a danger to his health or development, or   2.       the young person is seriously endangering his health or development by abuse of habit-forming agents, criminal activity or any other comparable behaviour."   38.      It is primarily the responsibility of the municipalities to promote a positive development for the young.   For this purpose each municipality has a Social District Council, composed of lay members assisted by a staff of professional social workers.   39.      If the Social Council deems it necessary to take a child into care, the 1980 Act specifies that the Council has to apply to the County Administrative Court for a decision to this effect.   Decisions by the County Administrative Court may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   A further appeal lies to the Supreme Administrative Court if it grants leave.   40.      Once a decision on public care has been taken, the Social Council has to execute the decision, take care of the practical details of where to place the child, what education and other treatment to give him, etc.   The law requires the care of the child to be carried out in such a way as to enable him to have close contact with his relatives and to be able to visit his home.   This requirement may mean that the child returns to his home, after a period, to live there, although he is still formally under public care.   The Social Council may, under section 16 of the 1980 Act, regulate visits to and by parents and also decide not to disclose the whereabouts of the child to them.   Such decisions may be appealed to the administrative courts by both the parents and the child.   41.      According to section 5 of the 1980 Act, the Social Council is obliged to monitor carefully the care of young persons who are in care under the Act and "shall decide to terminate care under the Act when such care is no longer necessary".   2.   Prohibition on removal   42.      The Social Council may issue a prohibition on removal under section 28 of the Social Services Act, which reads as follows:   "The Social Council may for a certain period of time or until further notice prohibit the guardian of a minor from taking the minor from a home referred to in section 25 [i.e. a foster home], if there is a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harming the child's physical or mental health if separated from that home.   If there are reasonable grounds to assume that there is such a risk, although the necessary investigations have not been completed, a temporary prohibition may be issued for a maximum period of 4 weeks, pending the final decision in the matter.   A prohibition issued under this section does not prevent a removal of the child from the home on the basis of a decision under Chapter 21 of the Parental Code."   The Government Bill mentioned that a purely passing disturbance or other occasional disadvantage to the child was not sufficient ground for issuing a prohibition on removal (1979/80:1, page 541).   It stated that the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not to issue such a prohibition included the child's age, degree of development, character, emotional ties and present and prospective living conditions, as well as the time he had been cared for away from the parents and his contacts with them while separated.   If the child had reached the age of 15, his own preference should not be opposed without good reasons; if he was younger, it was still an important factor to be taken into account.   The Standing Social Committee of the Parliament stated in its report (SOU 1979/80:44, p. 78), inter alia, that a prohibition might be issued if removal could involve a risk of harm to the child's physical or mental health, thus even where no serious objections existed in regard to the guardian.   The Committee also stressed that the provision was aimed at safeguarding the best interests of the child and that those interests must prevail whenever they conflicted with the guardian's interest in deciding the domicile of the child.   It also took as its point of departure the assumption that a separation generally involved a risk of harm to the child.   Repeated transfers and transfers which took place after a long time, when the child had developed strong links with the foster home, should thus not be accepted without good reasons: the child's need for secure relations and living conditions should be decisive.   43.      Section 28 does not apply to children who are being cared for in foster homes under section 1 of the 1980 Act.   As long as such care continues, the right of the guardian to determine the domicile of the child is suspended.   Whilst that right in principle revives on the termination of such care, it may be further suspended by an application of section 28 by the social authorities.   44.      Under section 73 of the Social Services Act, a decision taken under section 28 may be appealed to the administrative courts.   In practice, besides the natural parents both the child concerned and the foster parents have been allowed to lodge such appeals.   In the proceedings before the administrative courts, a special guardian may be appointed to protect the interests of the child, should these come into conflict with those of the child's legal guardian.   45.      In a recent decision (no. 2377 of 18 July 1988), the Supreme Administrative Court held that a decision by the Social Council to restrict the access rights of the appellants, Mr and Mrs Olsson, while a prohibition on removal under section 28 of the Social Services Act was in force had no legal effect and that no appeal to the administrative courts would lie against such a decision.   The court stated:   "Under section 16 of the [1980 Act] ..., a Social Council may restrict the right of access in respect of children taken into public care under this Act.   As regards the right of access to children while a prohibition on removal is in force, no similar power has been vested in the Social Council in the relevant legislation.   As there is no legal provision giving the Social Council power to restrict the right of access during the validity of the prohibition on removal ..., the instructions given by the President of the Social Council in order to limit the right of access have no legal effect.   Nor can any right of appeal be inferred from general principles of administrative law or from the European Convention on Human Rights."   B.   The Parental Code   46.      Chapter 21 of the Parental Code deals with the enforcement of judgments or decisions regarding custody and other related matters.   47.      Section 1 specifies that actions for the enforcement of judgments or decisions by the ordinary courts concerning the custody or surrender of children or access to them are to be instituted before the County Administrative Court.   48.      According to section 5, enforcement may not take place against the will of a child who has reached the age of 12 unless the County Administrative Court finds enforcement to be necessary in the child's best interests.   49.      Under section 7, if the child is staying with someone other than the holder of custody, the child's custodian may, even when no judgment or decision as described in section 1 exists, seek from the County Administrative Court an order for the transfer of the child to him.   Such an order may be refused if the best interests of the child require that the question of custody be examined by the ordinary courts.   When taking decisions under this section, the County Administrative Court shall also observe the requirements laid down in section 5 (see paragraph 48 above).   50.      Under Chapter 6 of the Parental Code, the Social Council may, in certain cases, request the ordinary courts to transfer custody from the child's parents to the persons who are in fact taking care of the child.   Section 8 of this Chapter reads:   "If a child h