CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 22 février 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 21608/93                       by Anita JOHANSSON and Others                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, Acting President            MM.    H. DANELIUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 6 March 1993 by Anita Johansson and others against Sweden and registered on 31 March 1993 under file No. 21608/93;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   a.     The particular circumstances of the case         The applicants are Anita Johansson, her daughter Jessica Johansson and her parents Gustaf and Greta Johansson, all Swedish citizens.   They were born in 1955, 1981, 1914 and 1930, respectively. Gustaf Johansson died in May 1994.   Anita and Greta Johansson reside at Kalmar, while Jessica Johansson lives at Karlskrona.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mrs. Siv Westerberg, a lawyer practising in Gothenburg.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.         Between 1961 and 1977 Anita Johansson was registered by the Care Council (Omsorgsstyrelsen) as being in need of special assistance owing to a minor mental retardation.         By decisions of 2 April and 19 May 1981 the Social Council (Socialnämnden) of Karlskrona ("the Council") took Jessica, one month old at the time of the first decision, into public care.   The decisions were later confirmed by the County Administrative Court (Länsrätten) of the County of Blekinge and the Administrative Court of Appeal (Kammarrätten) of Jönköping on the grounds that Anita Johansson was unable to rear Jessica and that, due to the conditions in the home, there was a risk of impairment of Jessica's health and development. On 7 October 1982 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal.   At regular intervals thereafter, the Council re-examined the situation and decided not to terminate the public care. These decisions were either not appealed or upheld on appeal by the administrative courts.         By a Council decision of 20 July 1981, Jessica was placed with foster parents and her mother was granted access to her once every five weeks.   Also this decision was reviewed at regular intervals by the Council and, on appeal, by the courts.   Thus, by a Council decision of 13 September 1982, Greta Johansson was granted a right to be present every fourth time Anita Johansson visited Jessica.   This right was, however, revoked by a Council decision of 12 November 1984, after which date Greta Johansson has met Jessica only once, in January 1993.   The decision of 12 November 1984 also limited Anita Johansson's right of access to two visits in the foster-home per year.   In this respect the decision was overturned by the County Administrative Court which decided, on 5 March 1985, to grant Anita Johansson access to her daughter every four weeks for five hours at a time in the foster-home. This was to be the extent of her access for several years thereafter.         In February 1992, Anita Johansson requested that the public care be terminated or, in the second place, that she be granted a right to meet Jessica for longer periods of time and at her own home.   Her request was refused by the Council on 6 April 1992.   After she had appealed against this decision on behalf of herself and her daughter, the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, in decisions of 12 May 1992 and 10 July 1992 respectively, refused to appoint her representative, Mrs. Siv Westerberg, as public counsel. Although invited to propose another lawyer to be her public counsel, Anita Johansson apparently did not do so, nor did she appeal against the appellate court's decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. Instead, Mrs. Westerberg represented her as privately appointed counsel.         By judgment of 30 June 1992, the County Administrative Court rejected the appeal against the Council's decision of 6 April 1992 not to terminate care.   It stated that, although Anita Johansson's social situation had somewhat improved, this did not give cause for the Court to change the opinion it had expressed in previous judgments on the matter.   Noting that Jessica had a minor mental retardation and thus special needs, the Court concluded that Anita Johansson, who was also slightly mentally retarded, was unable to take care of her.   As concerns the question of access, the Court, noting that Anita Johansson had never had the sole responsibility for her daughter and that there was no person who could support her in taking care of her daughter, considered that overnight stays at Anita Johansson's home could not be permitted since Jessica's security could not be guaranteed.   Taking into account Jessica's age, the Court, nevertheless, found that Anita Johansson's access to her daughter should be extended to six hours on both Saturday and Sunday every fourth weekend and should not be confined to the foster-home.   Before deciding on the case, the Court had held an oral hearing at which Anita Johansson and her counsel, Jessica's public counsel and representatives of the Council had been present and heard.   The Court also had at its disposal the parties' written submissions, including a report by the Council.         After Anita Johansson had appealed on behalf of herself and Jessica, the Administrative Court of Appeal held a further hearing in the case.   The persons present and heard were the same as at the hearing at first instance.   On 29 September 1992, the appellate court confirmed the evaluation of the County Administrative Court and thus rejected the appeal.   However, as far as access was concerned, the appellate court stated that, if the extended meetings went well, it did not rule out the possibility of overnight stays in Anita Johansson's home in the near future.   On 6 November 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.         In response to Anita Johansson's complaints about the conditions in the foster-home, the Council carried out an investigation, during which it heard the foster-mother, her former husband, her present cohabitee and Jessica and also contacted the local police station.   It further had regard to a statement from a children's psychiatric clinic and to previous investigations, during which, inter alia, Jessica's school teachers had been heard.   Concluding that the complaints were groundless, the Council decided, on 28 September 1992, that Jessica should stay in the foster-home.   In an appeal lodged on behalf of herself and Jessica, Anita Johansson requested that the public care be terminated.   On 9 February 1993 the County Administrative Court found that the Council's decision did not concern the question of termination of care, for which reason the Court could not examine the request.   The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal.   Anita Johansson did not appeal against the Court's decision.         After the Supreme Administrative Court's refusal of leave to appeal on 6 November 1992 Anita Johansson's right of access to her daughter was fixed at six hours on both Saturday and Sunday every fourth weekend without restrictions as to the place of the meetings. After this date, several letters were exchanged between Anita Johansson, her representative and the Council concerning the dates, places and other details of the planned meetings.   Apparently, however, Anita Johansson and Jessica have met only three times since November 1992, twice (in November and December 1992) in the foster-home and once (in January 1993) in Anita and Greta Johansson's home in the presence of two social workers.   According to the Council, Jessica, who was now almost twelve years old, subsequently refused to make any further visits to Anita Johansson's home.   Instead, she wanted future meetings to take place in the foster-home.   She further stated that she did not want to see her grandmother at all.   Thereafter, the Council, accordingly, suggested that meetings take place at the foster-home or at other places.   These proposals were, however, refused by Anita Johansson and her representative, who claimed that Anita Johansson had a right of access at her own home.   Alleging, inter alia, that the Council had refused to abide by the courts' judgments and that the social workers and the foster-mother had put pressure on Jessica to refuse visits to Anita Johansson's home, they requested the regional public prosecutor to indict four social workers with official misconduct and reported the Council's handling of the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Justitieombudsmannen).   In a letter to the Ombudsman, they further claimed that the two social workers had been present at the meeting at Anita Johansson's home in contravention of the courts' judgments and that they had sabotaged the meeting. Allegedly, the social workers had broken in on Jessica's and Anita Johansson's activities to discuss future access arrangements and had, furthermore, put questions to Jessica concerning Anita Johansson's allegation that a former cohabitee of the foster-mother had sexually offended Jessica.   On 25 May 1993 the prosecutor decided not to institute an investigation and on 23 September 1993 the Ombudsman decided not to take any action.   In her decision the Ombudsman stated that the Council had made several attempts to bring about meetings between Anita Johansson and Jessica in accordance with the courts' judgments and that there was no reason to blame the Council for the failure of these attempts.         By decisions of 10 May and 17 June 1993, the Council rejected a request by Gustaf and Greta Johansson for a right of access to their granddaughter.   The Council stated, inter alia, that Jessica had not met her grandfather for eight years, that she was afraid of both her grandparents and did not want to meet them, neither at their respective homes nor in the foster-home, and that it was inappropriate that Jessica meet them, as they spoke badly of the foster-mother and opposed Jessica's continued placement in the foster-home.   Apparently, Anita Johansson and the grandparents had gone to the bank where the foster-mother worked and told the bank's employees and customers that the foster-mother had abducted and maltreated Jessica.   On 27 September 1993, the County Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the grandparents did not have custody of Jessica and that, according to Sections 14 and 41 of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (Lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga, 1990:52 - "the 1990 Act"), only access decisions concerning custodians could be appealed.   On 20 October 1993 the dismissal was confirmed by the Administrative Court of Appeal and on 21 December 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.         Because of Anita Johansson's refusal to accept Jessica's expressed wish for future meetings to take place in the foster-home and the consequent failure to come to any agreements concerning these meetings, the Council decided, on 11 October 1993, as part of its obligation under Section 14 of the 1990 Act to review access decisions every third month, to restrict Anita Johansson's access to her daughter to five hours in the foster-home every fourth Saturday or Sunday, i.e. the same extent as before November 1992.         On 5 November 1993, Anita Johansson appealed against the Council's decision on behalf of herself and her daughter to the County Administrative Court which, by decision of 16 December 1993, refused their request for a stay of execution and ordered that a psychiatric examination of Jessica be carried out at the Children's Psychiatric Clinic (Barn- och ungdomspsykiatriska mottagningen) at Karlskrona.   The object of the examination was to assess Jessica's maturity, development and attitude to meetings with her natural mother as well as whether extended access would endanger Jessica's health and development.   The date of 20 February 1994 was set as the deadline for submission of the clinic's report.   The decision not to stay execution was confirmed by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 28 December 1993 and leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Administrative Court on 24 February 1994.         The psychiatric examination of Jessica was delayed.   In January 1994 Anita Johansson was informed that it could not be carried out before March 1994.   Thus, she requested the County Administrative Court either to dispense with the examination or to request another clinic to examine Jessica.   This request was, however, refused by the Court on 21 January 1994.   After having met Jessica three times, the foster-mother twice and Anita Johansson once, the clinic, on 15 July 1994, submitted its report to the Court.   After having held an oral hearing on 19 September 1994, the Court, by judgment of 5 October 1994, rejected the appeal.   After a further appeal lodged by Anita Johansson on behalf of herself and Jessica on 13 October 1994, the case is apparently pending in the Administrative Court of Appeal.         At the request of the Council, the District Court (Tingsrätten) of Karlskrona, on 8 November 1994, appointed a guardian ad litem (god man) to represent Jessica in the access proceedings.   Anita Johansson has appealed against this decision on behalf of herself and Jessica, and the matter is presently pending in the Court of Appeal (Hovrätten) of Skåne and Blekinge.   b.     Relevant domestic law         The taking of children into public care without the consent of the parents is governed by the 1990 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons, which entered into force on 1 July 1990. Section 2 of the 1990 Act provides that care is to be provided if there is a clear risk of impairment of the health or development of a person under eighteen years of age due to ill-treatment, exploitation, lack of care or any other condition in the home.         Once public care has been ordered, it is executed by the Social Council, which decides on the particular details of the care. Section 11 of the 1990 Act provides that the Council shall decide on how the care should be arranged and where the child should live.   It may also decide on questions concerning the child's personal conditions.   With respect to parents' or other custodians' access, the Council may, pursuant to Section 14, decide on how this access should be arranged.   Swedish law does not afford grandparents any rights over their grandchildren.         Section 41 of the 1990 Act determines the right of appeal. It reads, in relevant parts, as follows:   (translation)         "The Council's decisions may be appealed to the County       Administrative Court, if the Council has       1.   decided where the care of the young person is to begin       or decided on the removal of the young person from the home       where he or she is living,         2.   decided on the continuation of care in accordance with       the Act,         3.   decided on access in accordance with Section 14 ...       ..."         The decisions of the County Administrative Court may, pursuant to Section 33 of the Administrative Procedure Act (Förvaltnings- processlagen, 1971:291), be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complain of a lack of respect for their family life in violation of Article 8 of the Convention as a result of         a)   the refusal to terminate the public care of Jessica and the       restrictions on Anita, Gustaf and Greta Johansson's access to       her; and         b)   the placement of Jessica in an unsuitable foster-home and her       visits to a former cohabitee of the foster-mother.   2.     Under Article 6 of the Convention Anita Johansson makes the following complaints:         a)   the Council did not inform her of its decisions in 1981 to       take Jessica into care;         b)   she has been denied a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal       in that, because of the previous registration by the Care       Council, the courts have had preconceived ideas about her and       have treated her in a condescending way, e.g., by calling her by       her first name;         c)   she has been denied a fair hearing also because of the       courts' refusal to appoint her representative, Mrs. Westerberg,       as public counsel;         d)   the courts have not taken into account the change of       circumstances since the initial care decision; and         e)   the length of the court proceedings concerning the Council's       decision of 11 October 1993 is unacceptable.   3.     Also under Article 6 of the Convention the applicants submit the following complaints as to the impossibility of bringing certain issues before a court:         a)   All applicants claim to have been unable to challenge in a       court the social authorities' alleged refusal to comply with the       access judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal.   Anita       Johansson maintains that she could not, on behalf of Jessica,       bring before a court the question whether Jessica should visit       the foster-mother's former cohabitee, nor could she, on her own       behalf, obtain a court review of the social workers' behaviour       in connection with Jessica's visit to Anita Johansson's home in       January 1993.         b)   Gustaf and Greta Johansson and Anita Johansson on behalf of       Jessica allege that they could not bring before a court the       question of the grandparents' access to Jessica.         c)   Anita Johansson contends, on behalf of herself and Jessica,       that they were denied the possibility to appeal against the       conclusions of the Council's investigation of the conditions in       the foster-home.         d)   All applicants claim that they had no access to a court where       they could challenge the length of the court proceedings       following the Council's decision of 11 October 1993 to restrict       Anita Johansson's access.   4.     With regard to the complaints under 3) above, the applicants also allege violations of Article 13 of the Convention.   5.     Anita, Gustaf and Greta Johansson maintain that their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention has been violated in that the grandparents have been denied access to Jessica Johansson owing to statements Anita, Gustaf and Greta Johansson have made about the foster-mother.   6.     Anita Johansson contends that the registration by the Care Council and the consequential derogatory treatment of her by Swedish authorities and courts constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.   7.     Without invoking any Article of the Convention, Anita Johansson, on behalf of herself and Jessica, further complains of the District Court's decision to appoint a guardian ad litem for Jessica.   THE LAW         The Commission first observes that Gustaf Johansson died in May 1994.   The Commission has not obtained a statement from his legal successor or successors whether they wish to pursue the application on his behalf.   However, as complaints identical to his have been submitted by Greta Johansson, the Commission considers that it is not necessary to take a separate decision, under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, as to whether or not to examine his complaints. Therefore, the Commission will deal with his complaints in the same way as if they had been maintained by his legal successor or successors (cf. No. 6166/73, Dec. 30.5.75, D.R. 2 p. 58 at p. 66).   1.     The applicants complain of a lack of respect for their family life as a result of         a)   the refusal to terminate the public care of Jessica and the       restrictions on Anita, Gustaf and Greta Johansson's access to       her; and         b)   the placement of Jessica in an unsuitable foster-home and her       visits to a former cohabitee of the foster-mother.         They invoke Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, which reads as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and       family life, his home and his correspondence.         2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority       with the exercise of this right except such as is in       accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic       society in the interests of national security, public       safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the       prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of       health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and       freedoms of others."         The Commission has examined the respective complaints separately.   a)     The Commission, recalling that the present application was introduced on 6 March 1993, first notes that, in accordance with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only examine the proceedings starting with the Council's decisions of 6 April 1992 concerning termination of care and Anita Johansson's access and of 10 May 1993 concerning the grandparents' access as well as the subsequent court proceedings, as earlier proceedings concerning care and access have been concluded by decisions taken more than six months before the introduction of the present application.   Furthermore, the access proceedings starting with the Council's decision of 11 October 1993 are still pending in the Administrative Court of Appeal, for which reason domestic remedies have not been exhausted.         As regards the refusal to terminate the public care the applicants submit that since the initial decision to take Jessica into care Anita Johansson's situation has changed; while the initial decision concerned a single mother and a new-born child, the present situation involves a mother who, helped by the child's grandmother, is going to take care of her 13-year-old daughter.   As concerns the restrictions on access, the applicants maintain that they have been punished for negative remarks they have made about the foster-mother and the conditions in the foster-home.   The applicants also allege that the social authorities have refused to comply with the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal concerning Anita Johansson's right of access to her daughter in Anita Johansson's home.         As regards Jessica and Anita Johansson, the Commission finds that the refusal to terminate care and the restrictions on access interfered with their right to respect for their family life as ensured by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.   It must therefore be examined whether these interferences were justified under the terms of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).   In this respect the Commission recalls that three conditions must be satisfied: the interferences must be "in accordance with the law", they must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims enumerated in para.   2 and they must be "necessary in a democratic society" for these aims.         As to the first condition, the Commission finds that the administrative courts' decisions concerning care and access were in conformity with Swedish law, namely Sections 2 and 14 of the 1990 Act.         The Commission further finds that the interferences had a legitimate aim under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), namely the interests of the child, which in this case fall under the expressions "for the protection of health or morals" and "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 31, paras. 64-65).         It thus remains to be determined whether the interferences with Jessica and Anita Johansson's rights were "necessary in a democratic society" in the interests of the child.         According to the established case-law of the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights, the notion of necessity implies that the interferences correspond to a pressing social need and, in particular, that they are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether interferences are "necessary in a democratic society", the Commission furthermore has to take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States.   That does not mean, however, that the Commission's review is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State has exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith.   Furthermore, it cannot confine itself to considering the relevant decisions in isolation but must look at them in the light of the case as a whole.   It must determine whether the reasons adduced to justify the interferences at issue are "relevant and sufficient" (cf. above-mentioned Olsson judgment, pp. 31-32, paras. 67-68).         In so far as the refusal to terminate care is concerned, the Commission recalls that the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, in their respective decisions of 30 June and 29 September 1992, stated that Anita Johansson's social situation had somewhat improved since the taking of Jessica into care, but that, because of their respective mental handicaps, Anita Johansson was still unable to take care of her daughter.   This evaluation was made on the basis not only of written material but also of statements made at two oral hearings where Jessica's public counsel, Anita Johansson and her counsel were present and heard.         In the light of the foregoing the Commission finds that the refusal to terminate care was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that, having regard to their margin of appreciation, the Swedish authorities were reasonably entitled to think that is was necessary for the care decision to remain in force.   Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the decisions not to terminate care can reasonably be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         With regard to the restrictions on Anita Johansson's access to Jessica, the Commission recalls that for several years Anita Johansson had access to her daughter once every four weeks in the foster-home. Because of Jessica's age and improvements of Anita Johansson's social situation, the courts decided to extend access to six hours on both Saturday and Sunday every fourth weekend without restrictions as to the meeting-place.   The Commission further recalls that several attempts were made by the Council after November 1992 to arrange meetings between Anita Johansson and her daughter.   Because of Jessica's refusal to accept such meetings outside the foster-home, it proved to be impossible to arrange any meetings in Anita Johansson's home.   Instead, the Council suggested that meetings take place in the foster-home or at other places.   These suggestions were, however, not accepted by Anita Johansson, for which reason no meetings have taken place since January 1993.   The Parliamentary Ombudsman found in September 1993 that the Council could not be blamed for the failure of its attempts to bring about meetings.         The Commission, noting that the restrictions on Anita Johansson's access were based on careful examination by the Council, the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, finds the restrictions to be justifiable, taking into account that Jessica had been placed with foster-parents since 1981 and that Anita Johansson had had access to a lesser extent before 1992.   If the improvement of Anita Johansson's social situation allowed for increased access to her daughter, it was reasonable, in the interests of the daughter, to increase access gradually.   In this connection, the Commission recalls that the Administrative Court of Appeal did not rule out the possibility of overnight stays in Anita Johansson's home in the near future, if the extended meetings went well.   As to the alleged refusal of the Council to comply with the courts' decisions, the Commission considers that the Council made sufficient attempts to bring about meetings and had regard to the wishes of both Anita Johansson and Jessica.   The Commission agrees with the Parliamentary Ombudsman that the failure of these attempts cannot be blamed on the Council.         For these reasons, the Commission finds that the restrictions on access were supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that, having regard to their margin of appreciation, the Swedish authorities were reasonably entitled to think that is was necessary to restrict Anita Johansson's access.   Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the restriction can reasonably be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         Gustaf and Greta Johansson also allege that the refusal to terminate care and the restrictions on their access have violated their right to respect for their family life.   However, leaving aside the question whether they can be regarded as "victims" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention of the decision not to terminate care although they were not parties to the domestic proceedings, the Commission considers that, even assuming that their relation to Jessica constitutes "family life" which has been interfered with within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention, the interferences were permissible under para. 2 of this provision.   In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considers that the Council's decision to refuse access was in conformity with Swedish law, namely Section 11 of the 1990 Act.   The Commission further takes into account the above conclusions concerning Jessica and Anita Johansson and the fact that since November 1984 Gustaf Johansson had never met Jessica and Greta Johansson had met her only once.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   b)     As concerns the allegation that the foster-home is unsuitable, the applicants submit, inter alia, that the foster-mother has promiscuous sexual relations, that she and her present cohabitee are often drunk and that Jessica is left alone when the foster-mother is at work.   The applicants further allege that the Council forces Jessica to visit the foster-mother's former cohabitee, who sexually abuses her.         The Commission, noting that the Council has carried out a thorough investigation of these allegations, finds that the applicants' submissions are not substantiated and therefore do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of this complaint.         It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     Under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention Anita Johansson makes the following complaints:         a)   the Council did not inform her of its decisions in 1981 to       take Jessica into care;         b)   she has been denied a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal       in that, because of the previous registration by the Care       Council, the courts have had preconceived ideas about her and       have treated her in a condescending way;         c)   she has been denied a fair hearing also because of the       courts' refusal to appoint her representative, Mrs. Westerberg,       as public counsel;         d)   the courts have not taken into account the change of       circumstances since the initial care decision; and         e)   the length of the court proceedings concerning the Council's       decision of 11 October 1993 is unacceptable.         These complaints fall to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:         "In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone is       entitled to a fair ...   hearing within a reasonable time by       an independent and impartial tribunal ..."         The Commission has examined the respective complaints separately.   a)     As regards the Council's alleged failure to inform about the initial care decision, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ...   within a period of six months ...".   The alleged violation concerns decisions given in 1981, which is more than six months before the introduction of the present application.         It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   b)     In support of her allegation that the courts have not been impartial, Anita Johansson submits that the presiding judges and other persons present at the hearings have called her by her first name instead of her full name.         The Commission, noting that the applicant has not specified in which proceedings these alleged violations have occurred, finds that she has failed to substantiate that the courts have not been impartial in her case.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   c)     Anita Johansson claims that the refusal to appoint Mrs. Westerberg as her public counsel has violated her right to a fair hearing, as Mrs. Westerberg is the only lawyer who is able to give her adequate assistance.         The Commission is, however, not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in respect of this complaint as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ...".         In regard to this complaint the applicant failed to appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal of 10 July 1992 not to appoint Mrs. Westerberg as her public counsel, for which reason she has not exhausted the remedies available under Swedish law.   Moreover, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstance which might have absolved the applicant from exhausting the remedies at her disposal.         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   d)     As concerns the courts' alleged refusal to take into account changed circumstances, Anita Johansson submits that they have not had regard to the fact that the initial decision to take Jessica into care concerned a single mother and a new-born child, while the present situation involves a mother who, helped by the child's grandmother, is going to take care of her 13-year-old daughter.         The Commission recalls that the County Administrative Court, in its judgment of 30 June 1992 which was upheld on appeal, noted that Anita Johansson's social situation had somewhat improved and took into account the age of Jessica when deciding to extend Anita Johansson's access to her.   It has, therefore, not been established that the courts have failed to take into account the changed circumstances of the case.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   e)     With regard to the complaint concerning the length of the court proceedings following the Council's decision of 11 October 1993 to reduce Anita Johansson's access to Jessica, the Commission recalls that Anita Johansson appealed against the decision on behalf of herself and her daughter on 5 November 1993.   The proceedings have not yet ended, and have to date lasted more than 15 months.         The Commission further recalls that, on 16 December 1993, the County Administrative Court decided not to stay the execution of the Council's decision and ordered a psychiatric examination of Jessica to be carried out, that the psychiatric clinic's report was submitted to the Court on 15 July 1994 and that the Court, after holding an oral hearing on 19 September 1994, delivered its judgment on 5 October 1994. Furthermore, on 13 October 1994 an appeal was lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal, where the case is apparently still pending.         The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be considered in the light of the criteria laid down in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and that of the relevant authorities.   On the latter point, the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation has to be taken into account (cf., e.g., Vallée v. France judgment of 26 April 1994, Series A no. 289-A, p. 17, para. 34).         The applicant has not supplied any information on the proceedings of the Administrative Court of Appeal, for which reason the Commission sees no reason to criticise that part of the proceedings.         The Commission further finds the County Administrative Court's decision to order a psychiatric examination of Jessica to be justifiable.   The examination was delayed and the report was submitted seven months after the Court's order.   However, the total length of the proceedings in that Court was eleven months, which the Commission considers not in itself to be excessive, although it is essential that access cases are dealt with speedily.   In reaching this conclusion, the Commission takes into account that the case was rather complex due to the disagreements between Anita Johansson and Jessica as to the access arrangements and that Anita Johansson was not denied the right of access during the proceedings, but that it was only limited in relation to previous court judgments on the matter.         Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Commission finds that the length of the court proceedings following the Council's decision of 11 October 1993 has not exceeded a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It follows that also this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.     Also under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention the applicants submit the following complaints as to the alleged impossibility of bringing certain issues before a court:         a)   All applicants claim to have been unable to challenge in a       court the social authorities' alleged refusal to comply with the       access judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal.   Anita       Johansson maintains that she could not, on behalf of Jessica,       bring before a court the question whether Jessica should visit       the foster-mother's former cohabitee, nor could she, on her own       behalf, obtain a court review of the social workers' behaviour       in connection with Jessica's visit to Anita Johansson's home in       January 1993.         b)   Gustaf and Greta Johansson and Anita Johansson on behalf of       Jessica allege that they could not bring before a court the       question of the grandparents' access to Jessica.         c)   Anita Johansson contends, on behalf of herself and Jessica,       that they were denied the possibility to appeal against the       conclusions of the Council's investigation of the conditions in       the foster-home.         d)   All applicants claim that they had no access to a court where       they could challenge the length of the court proceedings       following the Council's decision of 11 October 1993 to restrict       Anita Johansson's access.         The Commission has examined the respective complaints separately.   a)     The Commission, noting that the complaints under a) above fall to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, recalls that the applicability of this provision depends on whether there was a dispute over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, and, if so, whether this "right" was of a "civil" character within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).   In particular, the dispute must be genuine and serious, it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 19, paras. 66-67).         The Commission further recalls that, although access to children is an area in which it is essential to ensure that the rights of individual parents are protected in accordance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), this provision does not require that all access decisions must be taken by the courts but only that they shall have the power to determine any substantial disputes that may arise (cf. Eur. Court H.R., O v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120-A, pp. 26-27, para. 60).   In this connection, the Commission considers that some discretion as to the implementation of access decisions must be left to the competent administrative authorities.   Unless the implementing measures go beyond this discretion and circumscribe the essence of the access rights, there is no dispute over "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) and thus no right of access to court.         The Commission reiterates its conclusion under 1 a) above that the Council, after the courts' access decisions in 1992, made sufficient attempts to bring about meetings between Anita Johansson and Jessica.   In implementing these decisions, the Council had to consider Jessica's wishes and that, in her interest, the extended access would have to be realised gradually.   Following Jessica's refusal to visit Anita Johansson's home, the Council found it ina