CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 novembre 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 Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2)*,           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   F. Matscher,         Mr   L.-E. Pettiti,         Mr   B. Walsh,         Mr   C. Russo,         Mr   S.K. Martens,         Mrs E. Palm,         Mr   A.N. Loizou,         Mr   A.B. Baka,   and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar,           Having deliberated in private on 24 April and 30 October 1992,           Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:   _______________ Notes by the Registrar   * The case is numbered 74/1991/326/398.   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 on 20 August 1991 by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden ("the Government"), within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.   It originated in an application (no. 13441/87) against Sweden lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") under Article 25 (art. 25) by two Swedish citizens, Mr Stig and Mrs Gun Olsson, on 23 October 1987.           The object of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether or not the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.   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)).   On 28 September 1991 the President drew by lot, in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the seven other members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr B. Walsh, Mr C. Russo, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr A.N. Loizou and Mr A.B. Baka (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) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the representative of the applicants on the organisation of the procedure (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).           In accordance with the orders made in consequence the registry received, on 23 January 1992, the applicants' memorial and, on 6 February, the Government's.   On 6 April the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.           On 7 and 27 April the Commission filed a number of documents which the Registrar had sought from it on the President's instructions.   These included some, but not all, of the documents requested by the applicants.   5.       A number of documents were filed by the applicants and by the Government on various dates between 3 February and 15 April 1992.   6.       As further directed by the President, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 April 1992.   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,     Mrs I. Stenkula, Legal Adviser,        Ministry of Health and Social Affairs,     Mrs B. Larson, Former Chief District Officer,        Social Services in Gothenburg,                    Advisers;   (b) for the Commission       Mr Gaukur Jörundsson,                                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 Gaukur Jörundsson for the Commission and by Mrs Westerberg for the applicants, as well as replies to questions put by the Court and by its President.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.       PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE       A.   Introduction   7.       The applicants, Mr Stig and Mrs Gun Olsson, who are husband and wife, are Swedish citizens and live at Angered, near Gothenburg in Sweden.   There were three children of the marriage, namely Stefan, Helena and Thomas, born in June 1971, December 1976 and January 1979, respectively.   8.       The present proceedings, which concern mainly Helena and Thomas, are a sequel to the case which the Court decided in its judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130 (hereinafter referred to as "Olsson I").   That case concerned the period from 16 September 1980, when the applicants' three children were taken into public care, to 18 June 1987, when the public care of Helena and Thomas was terminated (see paragraph 10 below).   The main issue in that case was whether the decision to take the children into care, the manner in which it had been implemented and the refusals to terminate the care had given rise to violations of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.   In the context of the case now under review it is of importance to note that with regard to this issue the Court held that "the implementation of the care decision, but not that decision itself or its maintenance in force, gave rise to a breach of Article 8 (art. 8)" (Olsson I, p. 38, para. 84).           For the background to this case the Court refers in the first place to Part I of Olsson I (pp. 9-19, paras. 8-32).       B.   Proceedings relating to the applicants' requests for         termination of the public care order   9.       A first request by the applicants for termination of the public care order was dismissed by the Social District Council no. 6 in Gothenburg ("the Social Council") on 1 June 1982.   The dismissal was upheld by the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) on 17 November and by the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Gothenburg on 28 December 1982.   The applicants applied unsuccessfully for leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten).           A fresh request, submitted to the Social Council in the autumn of 1983, was, according to the Government, rejected on 6 December 1983.   Apparently, no appeal was lodged against this decision.   10.      A further request by the applicants for termination of the public care, apparently lodged on 16 August 1984, was rejected by the Social Council on 30 October 1984 as far as concerns Helena and Thomas and, after further investigations, on 17 September 1985 as regards Stefan. Appeals by the parents against these decisions were dismissed by the County Administrative Court on 3 October 1985 and 3 February 1986, respectively, after it had obtained expert opinions from Chief Doctors Per H. Jonsson and George Finney and from a psychologist, Mr Göran Löthman, on 22 and 30 August 1985 and held a hearing on 20 September 1985 in the former case.           The applicants thereupon appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg, which joined the two cases.   On 12 February 1986 the court decided to request an opinion from the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen), which it received on 15 April 1986.   A hearing was scheduled for 21 August 1986 but was postponed until 4 February 1987. After the hearing, at which the applicants gave evidence, the court, by judgment of 16 February 1987, directed that the public care of Stefan be terminated and dismissed the appeal in so far as it concerned Helena and Thomas.           Following an appeal by the parents, the Supreme Administrative Court, by judgment of 18 June 1987, directed that the public care of Helena and Thomas should terminate, there being no sufficiently serious circumstances to warrant its continuation.       C.   Prohibition on removal and related proceedings           1.       Decision to prohibit removal and refusal to suspend                 its implementation   11.      In the above-mentioned proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that the question to be determined in deciding whether care should be discontinued pursuant to section 5 of the 1980 Act (see the above-mentioned Olsson I judgment, pp. 25-26, para. 49) was whether there was still a need for care.   The problems associated with the removal of a child from a foster home and its possible detrimental effects on him and with his reunion with his natural parents were matters to be considered not under section 5 but in separate proceedings, namely an examination under section 28 of the Social Services Act 1980 (socialtjänstlagen 1980: 620; see paragraph 57 below).   12.      On 23 June 1987 the Social Council prohibited, pursuant to section 28 of the Social Services Act, the applicants from removing Helena and Thomas from their respective foster homes.   This decision referred, inter alia, to the two reports by Chief Doctors Jonsson and Finney (see paragraph 10 above).   The latter report noted that Thomas was no longer depressive but still had traits of a childhood disturbance, in the form of delayed development and anguish in unfamiliar situations.           The Social Council's decision took account of the fact that Helena and Thomas had not been under the care of the applicants for a long time, that the contacts between the parents and the children had been very sparse and that the children had become emotionally attached to their respective foster families and environment. Regard was also had to the fact that Thomas was showing signs of greater stability, that Helena had expressed a wish not to move and that increased demands had been placed upon the natural parents by reason of Stefan's return to their home.   There was a risk, which was not of a minor nature, that if Helena and Thomas were to be removed from their foster homes, their physical and mental health would thereby be harmed.   13.      On 25 June 1987 the County Administrative Court rejected a request by the applicants for suspension (inhibition) of the prohibition order.   That decision was confirmed by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 2 July 1987 and, on 17 August, the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.           2.       First set of proceedings challenging the prohibition                 on removal   14.      In the meantime, shortly after the decision of 23 June 1987 to prohibit removal, the applicants had appealed against it to the County Administrative Court.   The court sought expert opinions from Chief Doctors Jonsson and Finney.   According to these opinions, dated 14 July and 3 September 1987, the prohibition was in Helena's and Thomas's best interests because:   (a)      Helena had shown signs of anxiety at the prospect of being         forced to return to her biological parents.   For instance,         on learning about the lifting of the public care order, she         had gone into hiding for two days; moreover, together with         Thomas, she had worked out escape plans in the event of a         return.   Whilst deriving a feeling of support from her         foster parents and friends, she felt extremely uncertain,         critical and hesitant about her natural parents.   Although         the latter had demanded her return, they had not, in her         view, indicated a willingness to form a relationship with         her and this confused her.   Removing Helena from her foster         home against her own wishes would entail a substantial risk         to her mental well-being and also to her physical health if,         in desperation, she were to carry out her plan of escaping         from the applicants' home;   (b)      Thomas had suffered from certain childhood disturbances and         had a retarded development.   It was especially on the         emotional plane that he was handicapped; he was very         dependent upon his foster mother and was in a fragile phase         of his development.   To remove Thomas would have devastating         effects on his mental development, both emotionally and         intellectually.           Further, the psychologist Löthman, also considered, in an opinion supplied to the court on 3 September 1987, that remaining in the foster home was in Thomas's best interests.   Mr Löthman observed that Thomas had developed in a positive manner, although he continued to be psychologically vulnerable and to have great emotional needs.   His attachment to the foster family had clearly been strong and positive; he had dismissed the idea, which gave rise to fear and anxiety on his part, of returning to his natural parents.   In that event he intended to escape.           Both the Social Council and the guardian ad litem, Mr Åberg, recommended that the appeal be rejected.   The applicants did not ask for a hearing and the court did not hold one.   By judgment of 3 November 1987, it dismissed the appeal.   15.      The applicants appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal, asking it to revoke the prohibition on removal or, in the alternative, to limit the measure in time, at the most until 6 January 1988.   Again they did not ask for a hearing; the Social Council and the guardian ad litem recommended that the appeal be dismissed.   The court examined the case on the basis of the case-file and, by judgment of 30 December 1987, rejected the appeal.   16.      The applicants then proceeded with an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, reiterating their request for revocation of the prohibition on removal or, in the alternative, for limitation of the measure in time, until 15 March 1988.   On this occasion they asked for an oral hearing.           Leave to appeal was granted on 4 February 1988.   On the same date the court requested the National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen - "the Board") and the Social Council to submit their opinions on the case, which they did on 22 and 23 March 1988, respectively.           Both opinions stressed the necessity of prohibiting removal of the children.   The Social Council intended, should the appeal be dismissed,   to ask for the custody of the children to be transferred to their respective foster parents.           The Board, for its part, pointed out that, having regard to the long duration of the placement of the children in foster homes and to the limited contacts they had had, further contacts must be arranged under such conditions as would make the children feel secure and would recognise their attachment to and feelings of security in the foster homes.   Referring to the child psychiatrists' and the psychologist's reports, the Board made mainly the same observations as those mentioned above (see paragraphs 12 and 14). It further noted, with regard to Thomas, that whilst it would take time for a child of his character to build up confidence in adults, his foster mother had succeeded in creating an environment in which he could feel confident.   With regard to Helena, the Board also stated that she had reached a phase of puberty and emancipation, the normal course of which might be disturbed if she were forced to leave the foster home.           The Board further stressed that the relationship between the natural parents and the children was of decisive importance for the question of removal where, as in this case, the children had been placed in foster homes for long periods of time.   In order to bring about a good relationship, co-operation between - on the one hand - the applicants and - on the other hand - the social welfare authorities and the foster parents was essential.   It appeared from the case-file that the applicants' lawyer had not sought to achieve such co-operation, which was unfortunate for the children.   It had had the consequence that no such relationship had been established between the children and their parents as would make it possible for the children to move to their parents without there being a serious risk of harm to the children.   The Board recommended that the Social Council examine the possibility of having the custody of the children transferred to the foster parents.   17.      The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicants' request for a hearing.   With regard to the merits, in a judgment of 30 May 1988 it dismissed their claim for revocation of the prohibition on removal; it accepted, on the other hand, that the measure should be limited in time and modified the decision under appeal in such a way that the prohibition was to run until 30 June 1989.   The judgment contained the following reasons:           "When section 28 ... is applied to this case a balance must         be struck between, on the one hand, respect for the         [applicants'] and their children's private and family life,         including the [applicants'] rights as guardians according to         the Parental Code, and, on the other hand, the need to         safeguard the children's health (see the third paragraph of         section 2 of Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government         [regeringsformen] and sections 1 and 12 of the Social         Services Act; through these provisions the protection of         private and family life referred to in Article 8 (art. 8)         of the Convention ... can be ensured) ...           ... When [public] care is terminated according to section 5         of the 1980 Act reunion should normally take place as soon         as possible [and] ... needs to be prepared in an active and         competent manner.   Appropriate preparations should be made         immediately after the care has been terminated.   This should         be done even if a prohibition under section 28 ... has been         issued ... . The character and the extent of the         preparations, as well as the time required for them, depend         on the circumstances in each case; one or more suitably         arranged and successful visits by the children to their         parents' home must always be required. The need for a         prohibition on removal of a more permanent nature can         normally only be assessed after appropriate preparations         have been made.   It is the Social Council's responsibility         to arrange the ... preparations for reuniting parents and         children after the care has been terminated ... [This]         responsibility includes an obligation to try persistently to         make the parents and their lawyer participate, actively and         in the children's best interests, in the preparations.   The         Social Council is not discharged from its responsibility by         the mere fact that [they], by appealing against the         Council's decisions or in other ways, show that they dislike         measures taken by the Council or its staff.   According to         section 68 of the Social Services Act, the County         Administrative Board should assist the Council with advice         and ensure that the Council performs its tasks properly.           Pending the beginning and completion of appropriate         preparations for reunion of parents and children the         question of a more temporary prohibition on removal under         section 28 ... may also arise.   Such a prohibition should be         seen as a temporary measure until the child can be separated         from the foster home without any risk of harm as mentioned         in that provision.           ...           It appears from the examination of the present case that no         appropriate preparations have been made to reunite the         parents and the children.   Instead, the time which has         elapsed since the Supreme Administrative Court decided to         terminate the public care seems to have been spent on         litigation.           The issue whether a prohibition on removal under section 28         ... is needed in this case must therefore be examined         without taking account of the effect of preparations that         have been made.   The Supreme Administrative Court's decision         should thus concern the kind of temporary prohibition on         removal that, according to what has been stated above, can         be issued pending more appropriate preparatory measures.           From the examination - above all the opinion given by the         Board and the medical certificates it quotes - it appears         clearly that for the time being, before any preparations         have been made, there is a risk which is not of a minor         nature that Helena's and Thomas's physical and mental health         would be harmed were they to be separated from their foster         homes.   Accordingly, there are sufficient reasons for a         prohibition on removal under section 28 ...           As regards the duration of a prohibition on removal, the         Supreme Administrative Court has in a previous decision (see         Regeringsrättens Årsbok, RÅ 1984 2:78) stated inter alia the         following: if, when the prohibition is issued, it is already         possible to assess with sufficient certainty that there will         be no such risk after a specific date - when some measures         will have been taken or they will have had time to produce         effects -, the prohibition must run only until that date.         If, on the other hand, 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         remain in force until further notice and the question of a         removal ought to be raised again at a later stage, when the         risk of harming the child's health can be better assessed.           An application of this rule to the present case would mean         that a prohibition on removal should remain in force until         further notice.   However, the circumstances of this case are         different from those of the previous case, as no appropriate         preparations have been made to reunite the parents and the         children, owing to the serious conflict between the Social         Council, on the one hand, and the parents and their lawyer,         on the other.   Furthermore it must be presumed in this case         that only a fixed time-limit might induce the parties         - without any further litigation - to co-operate in taking         appropriate preparatory steps in the children's interest.         If, within a certain time-limit, no such preparations have         been made or their result is unacceptable, the Social         Council may raise the question of a prolonged prohibition         based on the circumstances pertaining at that time.           Having regard to the foregoing, the Supreme Administrative         Court finds that the prohibition on removal should remain in         force until 30 June 1989.           The European Court of Human Rights has, in its judgment of         24 March 1988, found that Sweden violated Article 8 (art. 8)         of the Convention in one respect ... . This violation         concerned the implementation of the care decision and, inter         alia, the fact that the children were placed in foster homes         situated so far away from their parents.   The issue in this         case is another, namely when and on what conditions the         children can be reunited with their parents in view of the         termination of the care by the Supreme Administrative Court         on 18 June 1987. A prohibition on removal ... is therefore         not in conflict with the judgment of 24 March 1988."           3.       Request to return the children in accordance with                 Chapter 21 of the Parental Code   18.      A request made by the applicants on 10 August 1987 that Helena and Thomas be returned to them in accordance with section 7 of Chapter 21 of the Parental Code (föräldrabalken; see paragraph 71 below) had been rejected by the County Administrative Court of Gävleborg, after a hearing on 1 March 1988, by two separate judgments of 15 March 1988.   The court had found that there was a not insignificant risk of harming the children's mental health by separating them from the foster homes.           In a judgment of 11 July 1988 the Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal.   On 23 September 1988 the Supreme Administrative Court refused them leave to appeal.           4.       Appointments of a guardian ad litem   19.      In connection with the above proceedings concerning the prohibition on removal, the District Court (tingsrätten) of Gothenburg, at the Social Council's request, had appointed Mr Claes Åberg on 17 July 1987 as guardian ad litem for Helena and Thomas (section 2 of Chapter 18 of the Parental Code).   The appointment had not been notified to the applicants, who had not been heard on the matter; when their representative had learned about it, on 4 August, the time-limit for appealing against it had expired.           The applicants had asked the District Court to dismiss the guardian ad litem.   It had done so on 26 October, on the ground that Mr Åberg, by having applied for legal aid on the children's behalf to the County Administrative Court on 31 July, had accomplished the task for which he had been appointed.   20.      On 27 October 1987 the Social Council had again asked the District Court to appoint Mr Åberg as guardian ad litem.   On this occasion the court had invited the applicants to state their views before it took a decision.   It had granted the request on 12 February 1988.           The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Western Sweden, which dismissed the appeal on 23 August 1988. On 8 November 1988 the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) refused them leave to appeal.           5.       Second set of proceedings challenging the                 prohibition on removal   21.      On 28 September 1988 the applicants made a fresh request to the Social Council to lift the prohibition on removal, invoking - as a new circumstance - the Commission's opinion in the Eriksson v. Sweden case (annexed to the Court's judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 38-55).   The request was rejected.   22.      In a judgment of 12 December 1988 the County Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the Social Council's decision.   The court, referring to the reasoning in the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 30 May 1988 (see paragraph 17 above), pointed out that no appropriate preparatory measures for reunion as mentioned therein had been taken.   It considered that there would still be a risk of harm to the children if the prohibition on removal were lifted.   23.      A further appeal by the applicants to the Administrative Court of Appeal was rejected on 22 December 1988.   It noted that Mr Olsson had met the children on 11 and 12 October 1988 at their respective foster homes and schools and that the children had visited the applicants' home on 16 and 17 December, accompanied by the foster parents.   The court found, nevertheless, for the reasons expressed in the County Administrative Court's judgment, that the prohibition should be maintained.           Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Administrative Court on 14 February 1989.           6. Renewal of prohibition on removal and            related proceedings   24.      On 27 June 1989, a few days before the expiry of the prohibition on removal, the Social Council decided to renew it until further notice.   Moreover, it refused a request by the applicants that the children spend their summer holidays with them in Alingsås and visit them every weekend, unaccompanied by the foster parents (see paragraph 50 below).   25.      On appeal, the County Administrative Court, by judgment of 4 September 1989, confirmed the prohibition on removal but decided that it was to run only until 31 March 1990.   The court again relied on the reasoning in the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 30 May 1988 and noted, moreover, that few measures had been taken in preparation for removal.   It was highly unsatisfactory that, as long as two years after the termination of the public care, the conditions for executing that decision had not been fulfilled.   The court considered that reasons still existed for maintaining the prohibition on removal and that, accordingly, the Swedish judiciary and public authorities had failed in this respect.   Even though the applicants and their lawyer had not contributed to a desirable extent to facilitating the children's reunion with their parents, the main responsibility for doing this lay with the Social Council, which, as stressed by the court, also had a duty to implement judgments.   26.      Both the applicants and the Social Council appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal; the applicants sought to have the prohibition lifted, whereas the Social Council asked for it to be maintained until further notice.   By judgment of 23 January 1990 the court confirmed the lower court's decision, but extended the time- limit for the prohibition until 1 August 1990.           The applicants were refused leave to appeal by the Supreme Administrative Court on 8 March 1990.           7.       Further renewal of the prohibition on removal and                 related proceedings   27.      The Social Council asked the County Administrative Court, on 12 July 1990, to issue a new prohibition on removal, to be effective until further notice.   By judgment of 27 July 1990, the court renewed the prohibition until 28 February 1991.   It noted that no preparatory measures with a view to reuniting the children and the parents had been taken; such measures were necessary in view of the atmosphere of hostility that existed between the parties to the proceedings, which was detrimental to Helena and Thomas.   There were therefore good reasons to maintain the prohibition on removal.   The need for this measure was also shown by the fact that the question of a transfer of the custody of the children to the foster parents was scheduled for examination by the District Court in the autumn (see paragraphs 53-54 below).           The applicants lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Administrative Court of Appeal.   They have apparently asked the court to stay the proceedings pending the final outcome of those concerning the transfer of custody.       D.   The applicants' access to the children subsequent to the         entry into force of the prohibition on removal   28.      Prior to the termination of the public care of Helena and Thomas on 18 June 1987, the applicants' contacts with the children had been sparse.   Access had, since February 1983, been restricted to one visit every third month in the foster homes.   However, no such visits occurred during the period from June 1984 until April 1987, when Mr Olsson and the elder son Stefan visited them (for further details, see the above-mentioned Olsson I judgment, pp. 15-16, paras. 21, 24-26).   It does not appear that any formal decision with regard to access was taken in connection with the decision of 23 June 1987 to prohibit the applicants from removing Helena and Thomas from the foster homes.           1.       Particulars concerning the applicants' access to                 Helena and Thomas   29.      Since the prohibition on removal was imposed on 23 June 1987, the following meetings have taken place between the applicants and Helena and Thomas:   (a)      22 July 1988: a meeting of a few hours in a park in         Gothenburg, the children being accompanied by one of the         foster parents;   (b)      11 and 12 October 1988: visits by Mr Olsson in the foster         homes;   (c)      16 and 17 December 1988: visits by the children, accompanied         by the foster mothers, in the applicants' home, the night         being spent in a hotel;   (d)      8 and 9 April 1989: visits by the applicants in the foster         homes;   (e)      16 and 17 June 1989: visits by the children, accompanied by         the foster mothers, in the applicants' home, the night being         spent in a hotel.           2. Access claims and related proceedings   30.      Shortly after the decision of 23 June 1987 to prohibit removal, the applicants, through their lawyer, asked the social welfare authorities to arrange for Helena and Thomas to visit them in their home in Gothenburg.   By letter of 27 October 1987 from the social welfare officer, they were advised that they should first visit the children so that they could get to know them better and prepare for a visit by the children in Gothenburg together with the foster parents.   Subject to prior consultation with the foster parents, the applicants were free to decide on the further arrangements for visits in the foster homes.   Finally, the letter indicated a possibility of refunding travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the applicants in connection with their visits.           Throughout the autumn of 1987, there was an exchange of letters between the applicants' lawyer and the social welfare authorities - mainly the Chief District Officer - on the question of access.   Whilst the applicants insisted that the children visit them without the foster parents, the Chief District Officer, referring to the justifications for the prohibition on removal, maintained that since Mrs Olsson had not met the children since 1984, both applicants should first visit them in their respective foster home environment.   Moreover, in the event of a visit by the children in the applicants' home, at least one of the foster parents should be present.   31.      On 18 December 1987 the Chairman of the Social Council refused a request by the applicants to visit Helena and Thomas without the foster parents being present.   She found no reason to amend the Chief District Officer's decision on the matter.   On 21 December the Social Council was informed of the refusal; it decided to take note of it but did not take any specific measures.   32.      The applicants appealed against the Chairman's decision to the County Administrative Court, asking it to confer on them a right of access as requested.   In a decision of 8 March 1988, the court found that it was not possible to appeal, under section 73 of the Social Services Act (see paragraph 60 below), against measures prescribed by the Social Council as to the manner, time and place of access and refused the appeal.           On 29 April 1988 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld that judgment, noting that the Chairman's decision had not been taken under section 28 of that Act and did not fall into any other category of measures which could be appealed against pursuant to section 73.   33.      The applicants then proceeded with an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging that the Chairman's decision of 18 December 1987 was unlawful and that the absence of a right of appeal against it constituted a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.   The court granted leave to appeal and, in a decision (beslut) of 18 July 1988, refused the appeal.   It 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 empowering the Social Council to restrict the         right of access while the prohibition on removal is in force         ..., the instructions given by the Chairman 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."   34.      On 15 August 1988 the applicants lodged a municipal appeal (kommunalbesvär; see paragraph 63 below) with the Administrative Court of Appeal against the Chairman's decision of 18 December 1987. The court found that that decision could not form the object of a municipal appeal and that, in so far as the appeal might be considered as directed against the Social Council's failure to take any specific measures when informed of the decision (see paragraph 31 above), it was out of time.   The appeal was thus dismissed on 10 October 1988.   35.      In the meantime, on 21 March and 11 April 1988, the social welfare authorities had rejected requests by the applicants' lawyer that Helena and Thomas be allowed to attend their grandmother's funeral and a special burial ceremony and, in this connection, stay for one night at the applicants' home.   The social welfare authorities had pointed, inter alia, to the fact that the children hardly knew their grandmother and to the need to arrange contacts in an environment in which the children could feel safe and confident.   36.      In June and July 1988 the social welfare officer contacted the applicants and arranged for talks involving Mr Olsson and the foster parents, to plan the meeting which took place in Gothenburg on 22 July 1988 (see paragraph 29 above).   Mrs Olsson did not participate in these preparations, as she insisted on having access on her own terms.   However, as suggested by the social welfare officer, Helena's foster mother was invited to the applicants' home after a preparatory meeting.   On one occasion the officer asked Mr Olsson for his and his wife's telephone number in order to facilitate contacts, but he declined to give it.           After the meeting on 22 July 1988, Mr Olsson told the social welfare authorities that he had been disappointed; he had felt that he was being watched and controlled and Helena had called her foster mother "mummy".   37.      On 8 August 1988 the social welfare authorities dismissed a request made by the applicants on 2 August that Helena and Thomas be allowed to join them - on 5 August or at the latest on 8 August - for the rest of the summer holidays, on the ground that meetings should be arranged in such a way as not to jeopardise the children's health and development.   38.      On 11 August 1988 the applicants' lawyer deman