CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 février 1992

.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 case of Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden*,         The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:         Mr   R. Ryssdal, President,       Mr   J. Cremona,       Mr   F. Gölcüklü,       Mr   J. Pinheiro Farinha,       Mr   L.-E. Pettiti,       Mr   A. Spielmann,       Mr   J. De Meyer,       Mr   F. Bigi,       Mr   G. Lagergren, ad hoc judge,   and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar,         Having deliberated in private on 27 August 1991 and 20 January 1992,         Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:   _______________ Notes by the Registrar   * The case is numbered 61/1990/252/323.   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.   ** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990. _______________   PROCEDURE   1.     The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") and by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden ("the Government") on 14 and 17 December 1990 respectively, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.   It originated in an application (no. 12963/87) against Sweden lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by Mrs Margareta Andersson and her son Roger Andersson, who are Swedish nationals, on 13 February 1987.         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 object of the request and of the Government's application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention and also, in the case of the request, Article 13 (art. 13).   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 and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).   3.     The Chamber 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)).   However, on 8 January 1991 Mrs Palm had withdrawn from consideration of the case pursuant to Rule 24 para. 2 and by letter of 22 February the Agent of the Government notified the Registrar of the appointment of Mr Gunnar Lagergren, former member of the Court, as an ad hoc judge (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 23) (art. 43).   On 21 February, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr J. Cremona, Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr I. Foighel and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).   Subsequently, Mr Foighel, who was unable to attend, was replaced by Mr L.-E. Pettiti, substitute judge (Rule 22 para. 1 and Rule 24 para. 1).   4.     Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicants on the organisation of the procedure (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).   5.     Thereafter, in accordance with the President's orders and directions, the Registrar received from the applicants and the Government, on various dates between 15 March and 26 August 1991, their respective observations, the applicants' claims under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention and a number of documents. In a letter of 30 May, the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.         On 4 July and 5 August 1991 the Commission filed a number of documents which the Registrar sought from it on the President's instructions.   6.     As further directed by the President, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 August 1991.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.         There appeared before the Court:   (a) for the Government       Mr   C.H. Ehrenkrona, Legal Adviser,         Ministry for Foreign Affairs,         Agent,     Mr   R. Gustafsson, Legal Adviser,         Ministry of Health and Social Affairs,Adviser;   (b) for the Commission       Mr   H. Danelius,                          Delegate;   (c) for the applicants       Mrs S. Westerberg, lawyer,                Counsel,     Mrs B. Hellwig,                           Adviser.         The Court heard addresses by Mr Ehrenkrona for the Government, by Mr Danelius for the Commission and by Mrs Westerberg for the applicants as well as their replies to questions put by the Court and by some of its members individually.   7.     On 5 and 13 September 1991, respectively, the registry received further replies in writing from the applicants and the Government to questions put at the hearing.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE       A. Background   8.     Mrs Margareta Andersson and her son Roger Andersson were born in 1951 and 1974 respectively and are both Swedish citizens.   They resided first at Växjö but in 1985 they moved to Nybro.   9.     On 5 June 1985 the Chairman of the Social Committee no. 1 of the Social Council (socialnämndens socialutskott I) of Växjö decided that Roger should be immediately taken into public care on a provisional basis under section 6 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").   The purpose of this decision was to enable an investigation into his situation by the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic ("the Clinic") at Växjö.   The decision was based on a social welfare officer's report of the same date which noted inter alia the following.   When Roger started school in 1981 it had been observed that he was lacking in social adaptation and maturity, he was behaving in a very shy, inhibited and insecure manner.   The social welfare authorities at Växjö had then made several suggestions to help Roger which Margareta Andersson rejected.   As from December 1984 Roger stopped attending school regularly.   He and his mother later moved to an address unknown to the social welfare authorities which the latter managed to trace (at Nybro) after an investigation.   The report concluded that since Roger's health and development were seriously disturbed in connection with his mother's behaviour, it was likely that he had been treated in a mentally harmful manner for a considerable period of time.   In view of the fact that his health and development were increasingly in danger and that Margareta Andersson would obstruct the investigation, the need for public care was urgent.   10.    On 11 June 1985 the social welfare authorities decided to prohibit contacts between the applicants, pending a decision of the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) at Växjö on the care issue. They permitted however some contacts by telephone.   The prohibition was to be reviewed as soon as it was deemed not to be harmful to Roger to have contact with his mother.   11.    On 14 June 1985 the County Administrative Court, in two decisions, confirmed the interim care order and upheld the prohibition of access.   The Deputy Chief Doctor of the Clinic, who was heard as an expert witness, had stated inter alia that it was necessary to control Margareta Andersson's contact with Roger; it would be "too dramatic for Roger if she were allowed to visit him". Margareta Andersson could not cope with being separated from her son; she in fact needed assistance just as much as he did.   It should not be for him to take care of her.   Prohibition of access was therefore necessary for as long as Margareta Andersson was in such a bad condition.         Margareta Andersson unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Jönköping.   The Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal on 26 July 1985.   12.    The Social Council applied to the County Administrative Court for a care order under the first sub-paragraph to the second paragraph of section 1 of the 1980 Act.   After holding a hearing, the court granted the application on 17 July 1985 on, inter alia, the following grounds:         "From the investigation in the case it does not appear that       there is any reason to criticise the manner in which       Margareta Andersson manages her home.   In so far as can be       ascertained, the material conditions [there] are       satisfactory.   However, the investigation shows that the       situation in the home is likely to jeopardise a young       person's emotional and social development.   Before the County       Administrative Court, Margareta Andersson has expressed the       view that the information contained in the Social Council's       application is essentially incorrect.   In the light of the       proceedings in this case, Margareta Andersson must thereby be       considered to confirm the allegation that she is unable to       understand Roger's situation.   It has clearly appeared from       Roger's behaviour that his social and emotional development       is deranged.   It is therefore essential for Roger to receive       assistance and support to overcome his problems.   In view of       Margareta Andersson's attitude, it is not likely that the       necessary measures can be taken by herself or with her       approval.   The task of rehabilitating Roger must therefore be       entrusted to the social welfare authorities.   The Social       Council's application shall therefore be granted."   13.    As decided by the Chairman of the Social Committee (see paragraph 9 above), Roger was placed at the Växjö Clinic on 5 June 1985.   But, on 15 July he ran away and joined his mother.   On 26 August she reached an agreement with the Social Council by virtue of which the public care of Roger continued, after a brief period in the Clinic, in their home at Nybro.   14.    As from March 1986, Roger stopped attending school.   The Chairman of the Social Committee consequently had him returned to the Clinic on 29 April with a view to placing him in a foster home. However, on 13 May Roger again ran away from the Clinic and stayed with his mother, until the police took him back on 5 August 1986.   15.    In the meantime, on 22 May 1986, the Social Council decided to place Roger in a foster home.   Margareta Andersson appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court, which held a hearing at which she was present and assisted by counsel and Roger was represented by official counsel (offentligt biträde).   It rejected the appeal on 19 August.   Her further appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal was dismissed on 17 October.   On 19 December 1986 the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.         While these proceedings were in progress, Roger was transferred on 23 August to a foster home - with Mr Meijer and Mrs Höjsholt - at Glimåkra, situated approximately 120 kilometres from Nybro.   Except for two periods of hospitalisation, he stayed there until the public care order was terminated on 27 April 1988 (see paragraph 45 below).   He was taken to hospital, firstly, from 3 to 25 February 1987, for treatment of diabetes; and later, from 26 February to 3 May 1988, because he had taken an overdose of insulin.   Since the latter date he has been living with his mother at Nybro.       B. Limitations on access         1.   Decisions relating to prohibitions of access   16.    On 6 August 1986 the Assistant District Chief of the social welfare authorities at Växjö decided:         "Since it is considered necessary in order to achieve the       purposes of the care order, the undersigned officer in       charge, having been duly authorised by the Social Council and       pending the Social Committee's meeting, has decided that       prohibition of access (umgängesförbud) between [the       applicants] under section 16 (1) of the 1980 Act shall apply       as from today and until further notice.         The decision shall be reviewed as soon as personal contact       between the mother and the child is no longer considered to       be harmful to the child."   17.    Subsequently, in his report of 15 August 1986 to the Social Council, the social welfare officer responsible for the case explained the reasons for the above-mentioned decision and recommended that the prohibition of access be continued as part of a care-plan for Roger.   He relied mainly on the following considerations:         (a) Margareta Andersson had been involved with Roger's escaping twice from the Clinic.   Moreover, she had expressed an intention of moving to an address unknown to the public authorities or to leave the country, in order to avoid "persecution".         (b) Margareta Andersson had exerted a negative influence on Roger during her visits at the Clinic; on some occasions her behaviour had been so inappropriate that officials of the Clinic had turned her away.         (c) While Roger stayed at the Clinic, it proved impossible to induce Margareta Andersson to adopt any form of co-operation. Whilst she had been refused contact with Roger, she had nevertheless hidden money and messages inciting him to escape in clothes and toys which she had brought for him to the Clinic.         (d) Staff members of the section at the Clinic which treated Roger had observed that he had behaved in a "very suspicious but calm" manner and that he had become more attached to the staff.   He had seemed to handle the situation better than his mother and had not requested to call her by telephone.         (e) In order to achieve the purposes of the care, it was necessary to temporarily prevent Margareta Andersson from having "any form of contact with Roger".   18.    According to the report, the decision of 6 August 1986 was conveyed verbally to Margareta Andersson on 8 August.   19.    On 21 August 1986 the Social Committee endorsed the proposed care-plan, including the prohibition of access.   As stated in its decision:         "[a] prohibition of access is to apply between ...       Margareta Andersson and Roger Andersson, in accordance with       section 16 (1) [of the 1980 Act], until further notice and       awaiting that suitable access could be arranged without       involving harm to the child."         According to the Social Council's submissions during the ensuing domestic court proceedings (see paragraphs 34-35 below), the prohibition covered not only meetings but also telephone communications and correspondence between the applicants.         2.   Meetings   20.    On authorisation by the social welfare authorities, Margareta Andersson and Roger met on 5 October and 30 December 1986 at the home of the Helgesson family at Sibbhult, situated near Glimåkra.   A meeting planned for 3 December did not take place because Margareta Andersson would not accept the conditions for the meeting.           Mr and Mrs Helgesson had, as explained by the social welfare officer in a report to the Social Council of 30 March 1987, been appointed as support foster parents.   They were entrusted with the task of arranging in their home meetings between the applicants, in order to facilitate contacts between them without causing disruption to Roger's relationship with his foster home.   The meetings were attended by the Helgesson couple, the foster father - Mr Meijer - and one or two social workers.   They each lasted approximately two hours.   Shortly after the first meeting Roger attempted to escape from the foster home.   21.    A new meeting was planned at the beginning of February 1987, but it had to be cancelled as Roger was hospitalised for treatment of diabetes (from 3 to 25 February 1987).   The Government submitted that, during his hospitalisation, special efforts were made to have Margareta Andersson visit him at the hospital, but it was impossible to agree on the terms of such visits as she insisted on seeing him on her own.   However, on 19 February 1987 she went to visit Roger. On this occasion she had a violent row with the foster father who, against her wishes, had come to attend the visit which ended by him forcing her to leave the hospital ward.   According to the Government, the incident occurred because Margareta Andersson had not informed the hospital, the social welfare authorities or the foster father of her visit and had tried to take Roger with her. In the applicants' submission, the social welfare authorities had authorised her to visit Roger on that day.   Margareta Andersson and her representative had made the hospital aware that, since his situation was far better there than in the foster home, she wished him to stay.   Accordingly, there was never any danger that she would take him away from the hospital.   22.    Margareta Andersson filed a complaint with the police against the foster father, alleging various acts of assault.   The public prosecutor decided after a preliminary investigation not to pursue the matter.   This decision was subsequently upheld on appeal to the Director of the Malmö Public Prosecution Authority.   23.    Further meetings took place at the Helgesson home on 24 June, 13 July and possibly 20 August 1987.   Unlike the previous meetings, these were attended by Mr and Mrs Helgesson only, as decided by the County Administrative Court in a judgment of 1 June 1987 (see paragraph 39 below).   According to the Government, a meeting was also held on 5 August 1987, but the applicants contested this.   24.    Margareta Andersson declined to accept proposals by Mrs Wintler, a social worker appointed by the social welfare authorities to assist her, on 2 and 24 April, 25 June and 26 October 1987 to take part in the planning of any future meetings with Roger but expressed her wish to be reunited with him.   25.    Subsequently, on 28 November 1987 Roger and Margareta Andersson met in her own home, in the presence of Mr and Mrs Helgesson and Mrs Wintler.   The Government claimed that such meetings were also held on 20 December 1987 and on 9 and 30 January 1988, which was denied by the applicants.   26.    On 5 February 1988 the Social Committee decided that meetings be held on a monthly basis until May that year in Margareta Andersson's home and that, in between, additional meetings be organised in the Helgesson home (see paragraph 43 below).   As later ruled by the County Administrative Court in a judgment of 17 February, the latter meetings were to be arranged at least twice a month (see paragraph 44 below).   27.    However, on 26 February 1988 Roger was taken to hospital where he stayed until 3 May (see paragraph 15 above).   During this period his mother was permitted to visit him and, also, to stay overnight at the hospital.   Altogether, she spent approximately two weeks there.         3.   Telephone communications and correspondence   28.    According to a memorandum by the Assistant District Chief, dated 4 March 1987, the prohibition of access between the applicants was implemented in the following way until further notice:         "The prohibition covers telephone communications and       correspondence.   Margareta has the possibility at certain       times of the week to have telephone contacts with Roger's       doctor and with Mrs Helgesson.   She also has telephone       contact with [the foster father].   Letters from Margareta to       Roger shall first be scrutinised by [the foster father]."   29.    The applicants submitted that Margareta Andersson addressed about two letters per month to Roger in the foster home but he did not receive these, apparently because they had been stopped by the foster father.   Moreover, while Roger was in hospital in February 1987, she sent him several letters which he did not receive either, as they had been stopped by the hospital's personnel and transmitted to the foster father.   30.    The Government, for their part, asserted that, as far as they were able to establish, only two undated letters from his mother had been stopped, both probably written in February 1987.   One letter said that she had been talking about the case in a radio programme and had been refused to contact him by telephone.   It also invited him to inform the doctor at the hospital that he was dissatisfied with the foster family, with a view to getting assistance from the doctor.   Another letter informed him of the date of the radio programme and of her new lawyer, who would do everything she could to get him back home.   It moreover asked Roger to write to her about his conditions at Glimåkra.   31.    The Government handed these letters over to the applicants' representative during the hearing on 26 August 1991.   They submitted that the social welfare authorities had not been able, until late April 1991, to retrieve the letters which had been stopped.   32.    In addition, it appears from the case-file that the foster father had prohibited Roger to call or write to Margareta Andersson and had taken certain preventive measures to this effect.   Roger had, nevertheless, sent two letters without permission to his mother during the autumn of 1986.   33.    On 5 February 1988 the Social Committee decided to revoke the prohibition of correspondence between the applicants and, furthermore, to allow them to communicate by telephone on condition that it occurred on Roger's own initiative (see paragraph 43 below).       C.   First set of proceedings challenging the limitations       on access   34.    Margareta Andersson appealed against the decision of 21 August 1986 (see paragraph 19 above) to the County Administrative Court, requesting, firstly, that the prohibition of access be revoked and, secondly, that she be granted a right to talk to Roger on the telephone.   After holding a hearing on 11 September 1986 at which Margareta Andersson was present and assisted by counsel, the court, by judgment of 12 September 1986, dismissed the latter request as being inadmissible and rejected the former on the merits. It stated:         "Margareta Andersson has asserted inter alia the following:       The prohibition of access decided by the Social Committee       goes beyond what is necessary to implement the care order.       This decision was taken before Roger was transferred to       Glimåkra.   The fact that Roger is now living at Glimåkra       constitutes a change of circumstances.   There is no       indication that [Margareta Andersson] would now exert a       negative influence on Roger.   She has not interfered with the       present care and has not tried to sabotage the measures now       taken.   The resentment which she has displayed is rooted in       the fact that she does not understand why care measures had       to be taken.   It is true that the bags with clothes which she       brought to Roger when he stayed at the ... Clinic contained       money and a card with a message that she would help him to       leave.   This does not mean that she encouraged him to run       away.   It was her way of telling Roger that she would try to       get him home by appealing against the care decision.   Roger       has a lot of difficulties in the foster home at Glimåkra.   On       contacting the foster home by telephone she has been informed       that Roger sits alone in his room crying.   He wants to go       home.   Moreover he is being used as domestic help there.   He       has to do washing up and cleaning.         The Social Council has alleged that, in view of what has       happened in the case, it has been necessary to prohibit       access.   This includes a prohibition for Margareta Andersson       to speak to Roger on the telephone.   The Council has made       great efforts to get closer contact with Margareta Andersson       and to establish a relationship of effective co-operation.       These have not been successful.   It does not wish to risk the       failure of the renewed efforts.   The ... Clinic has       emphasised that a failure in this respect could entail a       considerable risk to Roger.   Statements made by Margareta       Andersson show that she is prepared to take Roger away.       Roger is developing well in the foster home.   The Council       aims at improving its co-operation with Margareta Andersson.       Its intention is that at least one month should lapse after       the transfer before any contacts take place between Margareta       Andersson and Roger.   If a suitable agreement can be made       with Margareta Andersson, the Council intends to let her see       Roger at the end of September or the beginning of October.         The County Administrative Court makes the following       assessment of the case.   The decision to take Roger into       public care under [the 1980 Act] and his transfer to Glimåkra       are based on the fact that Margareta Andersson has been       unable to give Roger the necessary care.   On two occasions,       when Roger has been staying at the ... Clinic ..., he has run       away and, with the help of Margareta Andersson, managed to       stay away for long periods of time.   During Roger's last stay       at the ... Clinic, Margareta Andersson tried to give him a       message which, in his eyes, must have meant that she would       take him away.   In the light of the proceedings and having       regard to the need of continuing, without interruption, the       care that has just started and of preventing Margareta       Andersson from influencing Roger, the County Administrative       Court finds that the Social Committee has good reasons for       its decision to prohibit access.   However, the County       Administrative Court considers it appropriate to underline       that if a well-functioning co-operation with Margareta       Andersson can be established, it is important that a meeting       between Margareta Andersson and Roger take place as planned       by the Social Council.         According to Section 20 (3) [presumably (4)] of [the 1980       Act] a decision of the Social Council may be appealed to the       County Administrative Court when the Council has decided       under section 16 on the access to a child.   The County       Administrative Court finds that the Social Committee, by       prohibiting telephone contact with Roger, has limited       Margareta Andersson's access according to section 11 of the       Act.   According to section 20 of the Act such a decision       cannot be appealed."   35.    Margareta Andersson appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal which, after a fresh examination of all aspects of the prohibition in question, rejected the appeal by judgment of 11 November 1986.   Its reasons included the following:         "According to section 16 of [the 1980 Act], the Social       Council may restrict the guardian's right of access to the       child, when it is necessary in order to implement the care       order.   Such a restriction may cover a prohibition of       correspondence or telephone communications between the parent       and the child as well as keeping the place of residence of       the child secret.   In applying this provision the right of       access should, as a starting-point, not be restricted more       than is absolutely necessary.         The appealed decision to prohibit access included, according       to the Social Council's statement at the hearing before the       County Administrative Court, a prohibition of correspondence       and telephone communications.   The entire decision is based       on section 16 of the Act.   The County Administrative Court       should therefore have examined those parts of the decision       which concerned prohibition of correspondence and telephone       communications.   Margareta Andersson's appeal should       accordingly be examined with respect to the restriction as a       whole.         ...         During the care period the Social Council shall in principle       try to maintain contacts between Roger and Margareta       Andersson, but it can be forced by the circumstances to       restrict contacts under the above-mentioned section of the       Act.         From the documents and from what has transpired in the       proceedings in this case, ... it appears that Margareta       Andersson lacks understanding for Roger's need of care and       that she is opposed to Roger being placed outside her home.       Margareta Andersson has prevented earlier attempts to place       Roger away from home by fetching Roger and by staying with       him in a place unknown to the authorities.   In view of what       happened during her last meeting with Roger and of her own       [oral] submissions before the Administrative Court of Appeal,       there is reason to believe that she will not accept that       Roger remain in the foster home.         It is an absolute condition for the success of the care in       the foster home that Roger feels secure when staying there.       The foster parents must furthermore be given the possibility       to deal peacefully with Roger's problems.   As soon as       Margareta Andersson is able to accept the care measures taken       and the transfer to the foster home and is able to       participate in the implementation of the care, she should       have the opportunity of seeing Roger.   However, Margareta       Andersson has shown that for the time being she is not       prepared to take part in the care measures in this way.       In these circumstances there are good reasons for the       decision of the Social Council to prohibit access, including       the prohibition of correspondence and telephone       communications."   36.    On 19 December 1986 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected Margareta Andersson's application for leave to appeal against the latter judgment.       D. Second set of proceedings challenging inter alia the       limitations on access   37.    On 9 April 1987 the Social Committee rejected requests by Margareta Andersson for termination of the care order and for repeal of the prohibition of access.   It stated, inter alia, that:         "continued prohibition of access, under section 16 (1) of       [the 1980 Act], shall apply ... until suitable access can be       arranged without harm to the child".   38.    On reviewing this decision on 14 May 1987, the Social Committee further decided:         (a) although the decision of 9 April 1987 could be interpreted as a total prohibition of access, it only amounted to a restriction on access;         (b) such restrictions should continue in accordance with section 16 (1) of the 1980 Act.   Every instance of contact between the applicants should be planned and carried out in consultation with the social welfare authorities at Växjö, at Mr and Mrs Helgesson's home and in the foster father's presence.   39.    Margareta Andersson appealed to the County Administrative Court, requesting termination of the care measure and, in the alternative, revocation of the restrictions on access.   The court held a hearing at which she and her son were each represented by counsel and evidence was given by the foster father and Mr Mats Eriksson, a social worker.   The latter had been assisting and supervising the foster home for a period of one month immediately after Roger's placement there.   By judgment of 1 June 1987, the court amended the Social Council's decision of 9 April in such a way that future meetings between the applicants were to be attended by Mr and Mrs Helgesson only and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.   With regard to the restrictions on access, it held:         "Concerning the restrictions on the right of access, the       Social Council has stated that there is no restriction as to       how many meetings can be arranged.   The restrictions also       include a prohibition of contact by telephone or letters.       According to section 16 of [the 1980 Act] the Social Council       may restrict the guardian's right of access, when this is       necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the care order.       When applying this provision the aim should be not to       restrict the right of access more than is absolutely       necessary.         Margareta Andersson has shown at the hearing before the       County Administrative Court that she does not understand       Roger's need for care.   Her only aim is that Roger return       home.   Her conduct creates a conflict of loyalties for Roger.       Margareta Andersson's previous actions in connection with       Roger's escapes from the ... Clinic at Växjö, Roger's attempt       to run away after her visit to the foster home, and Roger's       behaviour when she visited the hospital at Kristianstad, show       that restrictions on access are necessary for the successful       care of Roger.   The County Administrative Court finds that       the Social Council has good reasons to restrict the right of       access including contact by letters or telephone.       Margareta Andersson has stated that she does not intend to       visit Roger if Henry Meijer [the foster father] is present       during the visits.   The County Administrative Court finds it       important that the Social Council's decision be modified so       as to encourage Margareta Andersson to visit Roger.   This can       initially only be done if Henry Meijer is not present during       the visits.   In order to facilitate the establishing of       contacts no one else appointed by the Social Council should       be present.   During the visit, which is to take place in the       Helgesson home, the presence of the Helgesson couple would be       sufficient.   No other change should be made in the decision       to place restrictions on access."   40.    On appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal, after holding a hearing at which Margareta and Roger Andersson were represented in the same way as before the County Administrative Court and the former was herself present, upheld the above-mentioned judgment on 10 July 1987.   It gave the following reasons for maintaining the restrictions on access:         "At the hearing it was said that Margareta Andersson had       visited Roger on 24 June [1987] at the Helgesson home at       Sibbhult.   The visit - which was the first meeting ... since       February - turned out well.   The more precise conditions for       future contacts - as well as future care - depend to a great       extent on Margareta Andersson's attitude and conduct.         The Administrative Court of Appeal considers that further       successful encounters, such as for example at the Helgesson       home, must be established before other kinds of contact can       be allowed."   41.    Margareta Andersson subsequently applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, but it refused such leave on 20 August 1987.       E. Third set of proceedings challenging inter alia the       limitations on access   42.    On 15 December 1987 the Social Committee again dismissed a request by Margareta Andersson to terminate the care or, alternatively, to lift the restrictions on access.   43.    Later, on 5 February 1988, the Social Committee decided that monthly meetings be arranged in Margareta Andersson's home, in addition to meetings in the Helgesson's home.   It moreover revoked the prohibition imposed on correspondence and reduced those on telephone communications (see paragraphs 26 and 33 above).   44.    In a subsequent appeal to the County Administrative Court, Margareta Andersson requested that the care order be terminated, in the alternative that it be carried out in her home, in the further alternative that the restrictions on access be repealed.   After holding a hearing at which each of the applicants were represented by counsel, the court, in its judgment of 17 February 1988, rejected the principal claim.   As to the two alternative claims it stated:         "The Social Council has not examined Margareta Andersson's       request that the care continue in her home.   The County       Administrative Court cannot legally decide where Roger shall       stay.   Margareta Andersson's request cannot be examined.         Concerning the issue of restrictions on access the Social       Council has expressed that it intends to assess generously       Margareta Andersson's request to meet Roger at Glimåkra.       Furthermore, the Social Council has stated that the       restrictions do not include a prohibition for Margareta       Andersson and Roger to meet in private, but it does mean that       someone from the Helgesson family must be present in the home       where they meet.         In view of Margareta Andersson's previous actions and her       attitude as concerns the care issue, the County       Administrative Court finds that the restrictions on access       should continue.   Such restrictions should be designed so as       not to prevent a successful contact from being established.       The County Administrative Court finds that the restrictions       decided by the Social Committee have been so designed.   In       order to avoid any possible uncertainty, the County       Administrative Court considers it appropriate to indicate       that the meetings in the Helgesson home at Glimåkra should       take place at least twice a month.   Apart from that, the       County Administrative Court confirms the Social Council's       decision on the right of access.   The above shall apply until       the end of the school term in the spring of 1988.   Thereafter       a new assessment should be made."   45.    Margareta Andersson appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal which, on 27 April 1988, ordered termination of the public care of Roger.   It considered that, whilst the main reason for Roger's previous situation - namely Margareta Andersson's inability to give him sufficient care and security - still existed, the purposes of the care order had to a large extent been achieved in that Roger had gained the ability to have good social relations and a certain degree of self-esteem.   The court noted that Margareta Andersson's negative attitude towards the social welfare authorities had rather worsened during the implementation of the care order and that the likelihood of her continuing to refuse to co-operate with them and the school was considerable, even if Roger returns to her home.   However, it found that there were reasons to believe that his return would have a positive impact on his situation, since the kind of conflicts that arose in connection with the care measures would be avoided.   Moreover, it considered that Roger had become sufficiently strong and aware of his own situation for him not to be harmed by a possible lack of care from his mother.   II.    RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW       A. Care decisions   46.    The basic rules on public responsibility for young persons are laid down in the Social Services Act 1980 (socialtjänstlagen 1980:620).   This Act contains provisions regarding supportive and preventive measures taken with the approval of the individuals concerned.   At the relevant time of the present case, when parents did not give their consent to the necessary measures, compulsory care could be ordered under 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").   The 1980 Act was replaced by new legislation in 1990 (see paragraphs 65-66 below).   47.    Section 1 of the 1980 Act read:         "Care is to be provided pursuant to this Act for