CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 21 octobre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6A2FE81 { width:23.28pt; display:inline-block } .sEC10D7D4 { width:18.62pt; display:inline-block } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s70DF58E9 { width:3.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s893D1BA2 { width:9.98pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s2D8A4020 { width:32.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE32B62BB { width:25.96pt; display:inline-block } .s66441246 { width:19.97pt; display:inline-block } .s38A5FCD7 { width:19.28pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .s17A98FAE { width:27.33pt; display:inline-block } .sCD4D2F1A { width:24.67pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .s6F7073C7 { width:15.95pt; display:inline-block } .s57946AA6 { width:25.28pt; display:inline-block } .s49C574CC { width:7.98pt; display:inline-block } .sC0E0C70 { width:35.96pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .sC82ACC0A { width:20.67pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s3D66DD5D { width:15.98pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s76EAD327 { width:12.64pt; display:inline-block } .s97AF86F8 { width:9.31pt; display:inline-block } .sE4B66E67 { width:21.73pt; display:inline-block } .s894696E7 { width:4pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADF7EA2 { width:10.65pt; display:inline-block } .s6FD65DD8 { width:24.63pt; display:inline-block } .s10EE1A36 { width:31.99pt; display:inline-block }       EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS     FIRST CHAMBER       Application No. 32842/96       Pekka Nuutinen         against       Finland         REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 21 October 1998)                                                 32842/96             - i -           TABLE OF CONTENTS                         Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1-16)                   1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4)                 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-11)                 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 12-16)               2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 17-97)                 3     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 17-82)               3     B.   Relevant domestic law     (paras. 83-97)               17       1.   Paternity, custody and access       (paras. 83-84)             17       2.   Enforcement of access rights       (paras. 85-93)             17       3.   Secrecy orders       (paras. 94-97)             18     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 98-158)                 20     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 98)                 20     B.   Points at issue     (para. 99)                 20         C.   As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention     (paras. 100-124)               20       1.   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 and       period to be taken into consideration       (paras. 104-107)             21       2.   Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings       (paras. 108-111)             22         i.   The first set of the main proceedings         (paras. 112-113)           22         ii.   The first set of the enforcement proceedings         (paras. 114-115)           23         iii.   The second set of the main proceedings         (paras. 116-117)           23         iv.   The second set of the enforcement proceedings         (paras. 118-119)           23         v.   The third set of the enforcement proceedings         (paras. 120-121)           24         vi.   Overall assessment of the length of         the proceedings         (paras. 122-123)           24       CONCLUSION     (para. 124)                 24     D.   As regards Article 8 of the Convention     (paras. 125-150)               24       1.   The non-enforcement of the access rights       (paras. 136-149 )             27       CONCLUSION     (para. 150)                 30       2.   The extent of the access rights       (para. 151)               30       CONCLUSION     (para. 152)                 30       3.   The secrecy orders regarding the applicant's       daughter's whereabouts and the restriction on       his right to receive information about her       (para. 153)               30       CONCLUSION     (para. 154)                 31     E.   Recapitulation     (para. 155-158)               31     APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION       32 I.   INTRODUCTION     1.   The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.   The application   2.   The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1965 and resident in Kuopio. He was represented before the Commission by Mr Janne Kangas, a lawyer in Helsinki.   3.   The application is directed against Finland. The respondent Government were represented by Mr Arto Kosonen, Co-Agent and Head of the Human Rights Complaints Unit of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   4.   The case concerns, on the one hand, the length of paternity, custody, access and ensuing enforcement proceedings and, on the other hand, the non-enforcement of court orders granting a right of access in respect of the applicant's daughter. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 26 August 1996 and registered on 2 September 1996.   6.   On 13 September 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.   The Government's observations were submitted on 7 January 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicant replied on 10 March 1997.   8.   On 15 April 1997 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case.   9.   On 15 January 1998 the Commission declared the application admissible.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 26 January 1998 and they were invited to submit further observations on the merits. Such observations were submitted by the applicant on 25 February 1998 and by the Government on 3 March 1998. The Government submitted additional observations on 8 April and 8 June 1998, to which the applicant replied on 29 June 1998.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.   The present Report   12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       MM   N. BRATZA, Acting President       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       E. BUSUTTIL       A. WEITZEL       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       I. BÉKÉS       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       C. BÎRSAN       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     Mr   R. NICOLINI   13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 21 October 1998 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:     (i)   to establish the facts, and     (ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   15.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   16.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.   The particular circumstances of the case   17.   In 1987 the applicant was convicted of having caused danger to others and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. In 1990 the Kuopio City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) convicted him of attempted manslaughter and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The court had regard to an opinion on his mental state submitted by the Unit of Forensic Psychiatry of the Kuopio County Prison on 29 June 1990 as well as to a related opinion of the National Medicolegal Board (lääkintö-hallitus, medicinalstyrelsen) of 11 July 1990. The Board had concluded that the applicant had committed the offence without his full senses but that he was not in need of psychiatric care.   18.   On 21 January 1992 the Kuopio City Court convicted the applicant of having threatened and assaulted his then girlfriend H and of having subjected her to coercion. Those offences were found to have been committed without the applicant's full senses during H's pregnancy in October 1991, when their relationship had been ending. The applicant was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.   19.   In March 1992 H gave birth to a daughter, I. The two subsequently moved from Kuopio to Helsinki. In November 1992 the applicant was released from prison and recognised I as his child. In the light of H's objections a judge of the Kuopio City Court refused to confirm that recognition.   20.   On 30 November 1992 the Population Registration Authority (väestörekisterikeskus, befolkningsregistercentralen) granted the request lodged by H that her and I's address would not be disclosed for marketing, polling or addressing purposes.   21.   In an action of 21 September 1993 the applicant requested that his paternity in respect of I be confirmed, that custody of her be shared and that she be granted a right to see him every second weekend from Friday to Sunday night. In addition, the applicant requested access arrangements enabling I to spend part of the annual holidays with him. The Kuopio City Court's summons was served on H on 13 October 1993, the first hearing having been fixed for 14 January 1994.   22.   Before the City Court H contested the paternity claim and objected to joint custody and to any form of access between I and the applicant. The hearing was adjourned until 6 May 1994, the City Court having ordered the parties to deliver blood samples by 8 April 1994 on pain of an administrative fine. H was also under a duty to have samples delivered by I.   23.   In April 1994 H married another man.   24.   Taking note of H's failure to deliver blood samples, the City Court, on 6 May 1994, adjourned the proceedings until 9 September 1994. H was ordered to produce the samples by 12 August 1994 on pain of a further administrative fine. At its hearing on 9 September 1994 the City Court adjourned the proceedings until 16 December 1994, having      decided to seek opinions on the question of access both from the Kuopio Social Welfare Board (in respect of the applicant) and from the Helsinki Social Welfare Board (in respect of H and I).   25.   On 2 December 1994 the Helsinki Social Welfare Board requested that the time-limit for the submission of its final opinion be extended until 31 May 1995 so as to enable it to carry out a thorough investigation. It was then requested to provide a preliminary opinion by 14 December 1994.   26.   In its opinion of 12 December 1994 the Kuopio Social Welfare Board noted that the applicant did not wish to be in contact with H and her new husband and was willing to accept that the authorities act as intermediaries during an initial period of access. Moreover, he considered that the initial meetings should take place in the city or town where his daughter was resident.   27.   In its preliminary opinion of 14 December 1994 the Helsinki Social Welfare Board suggested that the examination of the access question be adjourned until the end of May 1995 so that a solution convenient to the child could be found in the exceptional situation. The Board alluded to H's strong fears of the applicant and on her new pregnancy which was expected to end in December 1994.   28.   On 16 December 1994 the Kuopio District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten; the former City Court) confirmed the applicant's paternity in respect of I (which was no longer disputed by H). On an interim basis, a right of access in respect of the child was granted for two hours on the last Saturday of March, April and May 1995. The meetings were to take place in Helsinki on the premises of an association in this field. The custody and access matters were adjourned until 2 June 1995.   29.   In a written opinion of 2 March 1995 drawn up for the purposes of the access proceedings Dr V, a child and youth psychiatrist, stated as follows:     (translation from Finnish)     "[H], [I], [H's husband] and [their son] have paid a visit to my practice.     [H] has shown to me a number of documents relating to certain court proceedings; in part to the [access proceedings] and in part to [the applicant's assault of H]. It transpires from the documents that it is intended to organise unsupervised meetings between [I] and [the applicant].     On the basis of the above material I must, as an expert, prohibit the meetings in question until further notice. Both supervised and, in particular, unsupervised meetings would amount to a flagrant violation of the best interests of the child and would subject [I] at least to a serious mental and possibly also physical danger and could damage her mental development to an extent which would be difficult to treat.     This opinion is of a preliminary character because I am currently examining the matter [more] thoroughly. The examination will last a few months, following which I will be prepared to submit a more detailed and more reasoned opinion.     The above is being submitted on my honour and conscience. ..."   30.   In a letter of 22 March 1995 the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority informed the applicant that the meeting between him and I fixed for 25 March 1995 would not take place. H had informed the Authority that she had no intention of bringing I to the meeting-place, the reason being that she feared that I might be subjected to "something harmful". The Authority's attempts to convince H to comply with the court order had been unsuccessful.   31.   On 18 April 1995 the applicant lodged a request for enforcement with the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Uusimaa acting as Chief Bailiff (ulosotonhaltija, överexekutor). He referred to H's failure to bring I to the meeting fixed for March. Moreover, a leading official of the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority had informed the applicant that H was keeping his paternity secret from I.     32.   In a letter of 21 April 1995 the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority informed the applicant that H would not bring I to the meeting fixed for April either. This letter had been preceded by a social welfare official's telephone calls to the applicant and H. The official had suggested to H that a plainclothed police officer could attend the meeting. H had refused, stating a wish to attend the meetings herself. When informed that this wish could be accommodated, H had retracted her consent, at least in respect of the April meeting. When requested to state her position in respect of the May meeting, H had thought her answer would still be negative.   33.   On 18 May 1995 the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority informed the applicant that H would not bring I to the May meeting either.   34.   On 22 May 1995 the applicant repeated his enforcement request, referring to H's failure to bring I to the April meeting.   35.   On the same day H requested that the Helsinki Register Office (maistraatti, magistraten) order her and I's address to be kept secret in accordance with the 1993 Population Data Act (väestötietolaki, befolkningsdatalag 507/1993). H referred to the applicant's conviction in 1992 and suspected that he was threatening her and I's life. On 24 May 1995 the Register Office ordered that the address of H and I should be kept secret for two years. This order has later been extended.   36.   On 29 May 1995 O.A. and R.K., Office Director and Senior Social Welfare Officer of the Family Advice Centre of the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority, submitted its final opinion to the Kuopio District Court on the question of access. They noted H's strong fears and suspicions in respect of the applicant and his intentions. H seemed to fear that the applicant's and I's meetings would cause physical or psychological harm to I or her new family. In the explosive situation at hand it would be difficult to organise the visits in an atmosphere which could be beneficial to I. Visits should nevertheless be aimed at in the long perspective, it being in I's best interests to meet her father in secure conditions and to be able to form her own opinion of his good and bad features. Regrettably, it had proved impossible to have any of the interim access arrangements enforced, thereby preventing the officials in a crucial manner from forming their opinion of the applicant's abilities to relate to his child.       37.   It transpires from a summary drawn up by the Family Advice Centre of the Helsinki Social Authority on 18 November 1996 that prior to drawing up the opinion of 29 May 1995 officials had met H three times together with I and once also together with the grandmother. The officials had intended to request investigations by the Family Advice Clinic (perheneuvola, familjerådgivningen) but H had already contacted a private child psychiatrist (Dr. V), whose preliminary opinion she had relied on early on, refusing to comply with the interim access arrangements. She had categorically refused to accept any such access, even when it was proposed to organise them at the Family Advice Centre in the presence of a police officer. She had feared for her own and the child's safety and considered that access would not be in the child's best interests. She had not wanted any information about the child to be given to the applicant. She had referred to his criminal record, the 1990 opinion on his mental health and the threats he had addressed to her family. The social welfare official had concluded that the parents' relationship was negative and filled with hatred. The applicant had been contacted by telephone and letters (as he had found it unnecessary to attend a meeting with the social welfare officials). Occasionally, he had been very aggressive and threatening towards the officials. The summary of 18 November 1996 concludes that in the light of the information available at the time the Helsinki Social Welfare Board had been unable to formulate any clear proposal to the Kuopio District Court in respect of the child's access rights.   38.   On 2 June 1995 the District Court adjourned the access proceedings until 15 June 1995 at the request of H. In its decision of the latter date the District Court afforded custody of I solely to H and granted a right of access in respect of the child. This right was to be exercised for two hours on the last Saturday of every other month. The District Court furthermore ordered H to pay the administrative fine imposed on 14 January 1994. The District Court had at its disposal Dr V's final opinion of 17 May 1995 in which he stated, inter alia, as follows:     (translation from Finnish)     "... I have met [I] twice and H, her husband and second child on three occasions. ... [The applicant] refused to see me ... but talked to me over the telephone. ...     ... [I] is strongly attached to her mother and her stepfather, whom she wishes to call her father.       The conversation with [the applicant] was rather original. He was ... rather agitated and paranoid and was unable to explain why. He refused to cooperate, although I explained that this would have been very important and in the interests of his child. Instead he threatened me with ... court proceedings and negative publicity; ... In the beginning of the conversation he lied to me, saying that the person answering the telephone was a neighbour. His paranoia was illustrated by accusations against everyone; everyone seemed to be wrong and to be persecuting him; only he was right. This fits well with the impression one gets from the documents, namely that [he] very easily becomes aggressive and that his ability to control his impulses is very poor. These factors combined with his paranoid attitudes and feeling of always being right makes him very dangerous when it comes to [I].     ... I consider it very likely that the foreseen meetings between [I] and [the applicant] will seriously damage at least [I's] mental development; they could also possibly endanger her physical health. I continue to be of the opinion that [H] ... should not agree to any such experiments ... at the expense of the child's future. [The applicant] must first show that he is able to create a secure and good relationship towards [H]; only subsequently can meetings of this kind be contemplated. ..."   39.   As regards the question of access the Kuopio District Court found as follows:     (translation from Finnish)       "According to the opinion of the ... Helsinki Social Welfare Authority [I] is a well-balanced child with a trusting attitude towards adults. Witness [V] has stated in his opinion that the tests carried out by [M.H.], Chief Psychologist, and [V's own] psychological interviews have shown that she is well cared for, mentally balanced, has developed and continues to develop well ... According to [V], [I] is a healthy and happy child. [He] is of the opinion that [the applicant] cannot be granted access rights ..., since [H] is afraid of meeting [him] and [I] can sense that fear on the part of her custodian.     Bearing in mind that the three-year-old [I] is a well-balanced child, who is behaving in a manner which is adequate for her age, short meetings between her and her biological father and other strangers cannot be considered harmful to her, provided [her] custodian is able to support her mentally in connection with the meetings. There is thus no reason to prohibit access ... completely. ...     For these reasons, ... the District Court finds that [I] is entitled to meet her father and to stay in contact with him. ..."   40.   The District Court specified that the meetings between the applicant and I were to take place at a children's centre in Kauniainen (near Helsinki), where the meetings could also be supervised. Both parties appealed.   41.   On 4 July 1995 the County Administrative Board appointed an official of the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority to act as conciliator in the enforcement proceedings. She was ordered to submit her report by 1 August 1995. H's lawyer informed the conciliator that H could not be reached in July 1995, since she was on holiday.   42.   On 19 July 1995 the conciliator requested to be replaced by another official, the applicant having objected to her appointment as she had been involved in drawing up the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority's opinion to the Kuopio District Court.   43.   On 21 July 1995 the County Administrative Board appointed the suggested official to act as conciliator and ordered her to submit her report by 15 August 1995. H informed the conciliator that she wished the matter to be handled by her lawyer, who would be on holiday until 15 August 1995.   44.   On 10 August 1995 the applicant repeated his enforcement request and referred to H's failure to bring I to the July meeting.   45.   In her report of 21 August 1995 the conciliator concluded that the situation was completely "locked" and that conciliation therefore had to be excluded. H was categorically opposed to any access between I and the applicant and had refused to even discuss the matter in person with the conciliator. The applicant, for his part, was approaching the matter so aggressively and expressing such threats that it rendered any dialogue difficult. Even his telephone calls to the conciliator had been impertinent and had contained threats.     46.   Heard in writing by the County Administrative Board, H referred, inter alia, to the applicant's convictions and prison sentences as well as to the views of Dr. V. In his rejoinder the applicant essentially considered that such material was irrelevant for the purposes of the enforcement proceedings. Moreover, Dr. V had expressed his views against remuneration.   47.   On 19 September 1995 the County Administrative Board rejected the applicant's request for enforcement of the initial access arrangements, noting that the District Court's interim order of 16 December 1994 had been replaced by its final decision of 15 June 1995. The applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten).   48.   On 29 September 1995 the Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland dismissed both parties' appeal in the main proceedings concerning custody and access and in essence upheld the District Court's judgment of 15 June 1995. Both parties sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).   49.   On 7, 8 and 9 December 1995 the applicant repeated his enforcement request, referring to H's failure to bring I to the September and November meetings.   50.   On 19 December 1995 the Helsinki Court of Appeal, acting as appellate body in the enforcement proceedings, quashed the County Administrative Board's decision of 19 September 1995 and ordered it to reconsider the applicant's request as comprising a request for enforcement also of the access arrangements ordered on 15 June 1995.   51.   The County Administrative Board joined the remitted request and the applicant's fresh request for enforcement and again heard H in writing. According to the Board's summary she stated, inter alia, as follows:     "... [The applicant's] intention has clearly been to harass [H] by requesting the imposition of administrative fines. The imposition of fines would not be in the best interests of the child, since [H's] financial possibility of caring [for I] would thereby be significantly jeopardised. The courts' finding that the biological father's rights are so strong that they must be given more weight than the experts' views on the best interests of the child is astonishing. Both the social welfare officers of the City of Helsinki and child psychiatrist [V] had been of the opinion that [access between I and the applicant] would not at this stage be in the best interests of the child."      52.   On 13 February 1996 the County Administrative Board ordered H to comply, on pain of an administrative fine of FIM 5,000 , with the access arrangements ordered on 15 June 1995 and upheld on 29 September 1995. The Board found that H had not put forward any acceptable reason for her refusal to bring I to the meetings fixed for July, September and November 1995. Moreover, the Supreme Court had not suspended the enforcement of the decision of 29 September 1995 of the Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland. Finally, the expert views to which H had referred, allegedly showing that enforcement would not be in the child's best interests, had been known already to the first instance court in the civil proceedings regarding access and custody. That material could therefore not be invoked at the enforcement stage.   53.   On 7 March 1996 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in the civil proceedings concerning custody and access.   54.   On 7 May 1996 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice (apulaisoikeus-kansleri, justitiekanslersadjoint) found that the Kuopio District Court had not postponed the first set of the main proceedings unnecessarily, given the failure by H to produce the necessary blood samples and the requests for opinions from the social authorities.   55.   In response to the applicant's further request for enforcement the County Administrative Board, on 14 October 1996, ordered H to pay the fine of FIM 5,000 imposed in February 1996 and directed her to comply with the access arrangements on pain of a further fine of FIM 8,000. The County Administrative Board noted that the address of the centre where the meetings were to take place had changed. However, even after H had been informed of the new address (on 4 June 1996) she had     refused to comply with the arrangements. She could also have verified the possible supervision of the meetings by contacting the centre directly.   56.   On 12 February 1997 the Helsinki Court of Appeal upheld the County Administrative Board's decision of 14 October 1996. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was not requested.   57.   In December 1996 the applicant brought fresh proceedings before the Helsinki District Court, seeking to obtain shared custody of I and extended access rights. H objected and sought to have the access rights revoked. She invoked her and her family's right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. She had now told her daughter that, being her biological father, the applicant wished to see her. The daughter, however, had allegedly not been interested in seeing the applicant. H furthermore referred the applicant to her parents' address in Kuopio, where he could send presents intended for his daughter without knowing her whereabouts.   58.   As from 1 December 1996 a request for enforcement of access rights was to be lodged with a district court which could also order that a child be fetched for enforcement purposes. In response the applicant's request to this effect the Helsinki District Court, on 11 February 1997, appointed two conciliators of the Western Social Welfare Centre, R.C., Senior Social Welfare Officer, and E.B., a psychologist of the Family Advice Clinic, and ordered them to submit an opinion by 4 March 1997. The conciliators met separately with the parents and, as suggested by H, also planned on interviewing I.   59.   In their report of 9 March 1997 the conciliators noted, inter alia, that in spite of her argument that it was important to ascertain the child's own opinion H had refused to bring I to a meeting with them. The applicant, for his part, had demonstrated in the course of the conciliation that he could become very aggressive. He had stressed his own intelligence and good health. In his view his current situation was simply a result of the protracted access proceedings. On this point the conciliators noted, however, that already in 1990 he had been diagnosed as suffering from a clear mental disturbance. In his opinion the conciliators were always siding with H and the conciliation was only a means of prolonging the proceedings. He did not trust the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority or the judicial organs. He had threatened with court proceedings and publicity. The conciliators continued as follows:     "It is of course natural that [the applicant] is frustrated ..., having tried in vain to meet his child. However, this does not ... explain such a strong aggressive behaviour. [The applicant's ] suspicions also showed in that he recorded all telephone conversations and [our] meeting. ...     [The applicant] emphasised the child's right to know who her father is and to meet him. However, the fact that [H] has refused to comply with the access arrangements does not change the fact that [the applicant] is a complete stranger to the child. [The applicant's] lack of understanding is reflected, for instance, in his refusal to accept that the child could bring along a support person to the meetings, his reason being that he himself has to come to the meetings alone. ..."   60.   The conciliators concluded that it would be in I's best interests that the meetings with the applicant be organised after the child had   been properly prepared for them and would feel calm and safe. Otherwise the child would be under a duty to meet the applicant instead of enjoying a right to this effect.   61.   Apart from interviewing the applicant and H the conciliators had also heard one of the previous conciliators, Chief Inspector P-L.H. of the Ministry for Social Welfare and Health Affairs, the mother of H as well as the supervisor at the centre where I's meetings with the applicant should have taken place. With reference to Chief Inspector P-L.H.'s opinion that the conditions for the meetings should be revised, the conciliators attached a secret memorandum containing information obtained by the Ministry and which had not been at the courts' disposal. According to the memorandum, Chief Inspector P-L.H. had, in the course of preparing the respondent Government's observations in reply to the present application before the Commission, obtained various patient records indicating that the applicant had been suffering from mental problems for years. When the conciliators had raised this point with the applicant, he had become very aggressive, contending that he had no such problems. The access dispute had begun to affect his nerves and his doctor had rightly been concerned about this, not about any mental problems. The applicant had again threatened with court proceedings, newspaper articles, etc. He had refused to even consider psychiatric care or therapy. His language had been "unbelievably inappropriate". These elements had finally convinced conciliator R.C. to prevent the applicant from seeing his child, "by whatever means possible".     62.   The District Court heard the applicant and H orally as well as two witnesses on the applicant's behalf and conciliator R.C. The applicant contended that he had not been behaving violently during the last years. Nor was he in need of therapy, care or medication against his alleged mental problems. The two witnesses heard on his behalf testified along the same lines. Having been unable to interview I, conciliator R.C. found herself unable to state any view as to whether the meetings would be in the child's best interest.   63.   In its decision of 7 April 1997 the District Court found that the testimonies by the applicant's witnesses could not refute the medical indications relating to his current mental state. Those indications did not, however, show that enforcement of the access arrangements would be contrary to I's interests, bearing in mind the limited access and the meeting place. The court was composed by one presiding professional judge and three lay judges.   64.   The District Court dismissed the applicant's request that the child be fetched to the meetings. Having regard to H's attitude, the District Court found it most likely, however, that the court-ordered access would not take place despite the changes ordered. The fact that the child had never met the applicant could therefore be seen as a weighty reason for ordering the child to be fetched. On the other hand, fetching I could not be the right way for her to get to know the applicant. Instead she should be given a possibility to get know him gradually in conditions where she would feel that this would be on a voluntary basis. The District Court therefore concluded that there were no weighty reasons militating in favour of fetching the child. It went on to ordering that, during six months, a professional supervisor as well as H and/or another person close to the child should attend the child's meetings with the applicant. The applicant had agreed to those changes. The District Court ordered H to comply with the modified arrangements on pain of a further administrative fine, this time of a running character in view of the special reasons at hand. The amount of the fine was FIM 10,000 at the outset, to be increased with FIM 2,000 for each of the three forthcoming meetings between I and the applicant which H would refuse to respect (in May, July and September 1998).   65.   The District Court furthermore ordered that the applicant could not bring other persons with him to the meetings. Nor could he audiotape the meetings or videotape and/or photograph, without their consent, the other persons attending the meetings. In order to keep I's whereabouts secret from the applicant she and the accompanying persons would arrive at the meeting place ten minutes after the applicant and leave ten minutes before him.     66.   The District Court waived the administrative fine which had been imposed on H on 14 October 1996. It noted that whereas the Kuopio District Court's decision of 15 June 1995 could have given the impression that the meetings would be supervised, the centre where they were to be organised had informed H that the meetings would not be supervised without an explicit court order to that effect. In these circumstances H had had reason to suspect that enforcement would not be in I's best interests. Her refusal to bring I to those meetings had therefore been acceptable.   67.   The District Court's decision was upheld by the Helsinki Court of Appeal on 14 August 1997 and leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 30 December 1997.   68.   Meanwhile, at a preparatory hearing on 23 April 1997 the Helsinki District Court decided to adjourn the second set of custody and access proceedings pending receipt of opinions from the social welfare boards of Helsinki and Kuopio by 30 October 1997. It found no reason to amend or revoke the access rights on an interim basis.   69.   In its opinion of 2 September 1997 the Kuopio Social Welfare and Health Board stated, inter alia, as follows:     (translation from Finnish)     "... At [our] meeting [the applicant] stated that his life situation had improved and that things were going well. He was unwilling to provide any further information to [the social welfare officers], stating that he would inform the court directly of his conditions.        [The applicant] called on 14 August 1997 to say he was moving away from Kuopio ... He refused to indicate his new place of residence.     ... In the light of the foregoing the Kuopio ... Board is unable to put forward a recommendation concerning access, since there is no adequate information as to the conditions of the applicant. ..."   70.   The Helsinki Social Welfare Authority was granted an extension until 31 December 1997. In its opinion of that date it stated, inter alia, as follows:     (translation from Finnish)     "[H] was interviewed at the Family Office on 11 July 1997 and briefly on 13 August 1997. She cancelled the appointments reserved for her [i.e. five between July and December 1997] ...     ... The child has not been met. [H] refused to bring [I] to the Family Office. Nor did she accept that [social welfare] officers pay a visit to her home, where the child could have been met in surroundings familiar [to it]. [H] wishes to keep her family (husband and children) outside the access dispute. ...     H objects to any meetings between I and [the applicant]. In her opinion [the applicant] has nothing positive to give to the child. On the contrary, she fears that [he] will frighten [I] with his uncontrolled behaviour. She considers [the applicant] to be mentally unstable and fears physical violence on his part. ...     H will not permit [the applicant] to see [I] until [the child] is ready for it and expresses a wish to that effect. If the child is ordered to be fetched, [H] will leave home with the child. ... The child should itself have the right to decide whether or not it wishes to see its father. ...     ... The officers in charge of this investigation have not met with [the applicant]. In telephone conversations his behaviour has been inappropriate and threatening towards the officers of the Child Welfare Clinic. He has behaved in the same manner towards the conciliators of the ... Social Welfare Authority.     In the course of the investigation a meeting between I and her father could not be organised. Such a meeting might have produced valuable information with a view to assessing the success of future meetings. ... On the basis of the information now collected it is not possible to assess at what age the meetings could be successful with regard to the best interests of the child. The circumstances would at any rate have to be very secure. ... In her early teens [I] will herself be ready to decide ... on possible meetings with her father. ..."   71.   In their opinion of 19 December 1997 (attached to the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority's opinion) psychiatrists M.L. and O.H. of the Family Advice Clinic of the Southern Social Welfare Centre stated, inter alia, the following:     "... We met I together with her mother on 28 October 1997 and the mother alone on 29 September 1997. We offered three different appointments to [the applicant] but he refused to attend. ...     We have not met the child separately and we have not conducted any psychological examination, having considered that this would not shed any further light on the matter.     The investigation is incomplete, since in respect of the father it was limited to telephone calls and letters received from him. It was not possible to arrange a meeting between the ... father and the daughter or a ...meeting between the mother, the daughter and the father, since the mother did not agree to such a meeting.     [The applicant] could not agree on a date for a meeting. At first he doubted whether he would be able to attend the meetings due to his studies and the long distance [between Helsinki and Rovaniemi]. Later he stated that he would not attend the meetings unless his daughter had been interviewed at [the Clinic] before him. When we offered ... to meet him after [I]'s visit ..., he refused, requiring that we arrange a meeting between him and [I]. ... Finally, [he] noted that under domestic law it was for the authorities on his place of residence to provide an opinion on his conditions.     During the telephone conversations [the applicant] ... occasionally used inappropriate and aggressive language towards us. It was not possible to have a dialogue with him. [His behaviour] did not reflect any real understanding of the world of a five-year-old girl or of the feelings and reactions which she could be facing if she met him in the current extremely tense conditions.     ... A five-year-old child's perception of the world is still identical with that of its parents ... Accordingly, even if [H and I's stepfather] were to support [I] in her meetings with her biological father, [the] internal fears and resistance she would sense in her [de facto] parents would place her in a situation of anxiety and contradiction.     Subjecting the child to the very difficult disputes between its biological parents could endanger her normal mental development. ...     ... It would be very important for [I] that the legal battle between her biological parents cease. ..."   72.   The applicant moved to Rovaniemi apparently towards the end of 1997. In December 1997 he brought further enforcement proceedings before the Helsinki District Court, again referring to the exceptional circumstances which in his view required that the child be fetched to the meetings. A preparatory hearing was held on 2 February 1998, by which time H and I had apparently moved to Oulu.   73.   On 3 March 1998 the Helsinki District Court again dismissed the applicant's demand that the child be fetched to the meetings. Neither the Presiding Judge nor any of the three lay members had examined the previous enforcement request decided on 7 April 1997. The District Court had again heard the applicant and H as well as psychiatrist M.L. of the Family Advice Clinic and also based itself on the Helsinki Social Welfare Authority's opinions of 29 May 1995 and 31 December 1997; the opinion of the Family Advice Centre of 19 December 1997; and the Kuopio Social Welfare and Health Board's opinion of 2 September 1997.   74.   The District Court further ordered H to pay the administrative fines imposed on 7 April 1997 in the amount of FIM 16,000. She was also ordered to comply with the access arrangements on pain of a further administrative fine of a running character. Access was now to take place in Oulu. The amount of the fine now imposed was FIM 20,000 at the outset, to be increased with FIM 6,000 for each of the three forthcoming meetings between I and the applicant which H would refuse to respect (in March, May and July 1998). Both parties appealed.   75.   At a continued preliminary hearing on 20 April 1998 the Helsinki District Court, now considering the applicant's second request for (shared) custody and (extended) access rights, decided to hear the applicant, H, two witnesses on behalf of the applicant and four on behalf of H, including Dr. V and Dr. O.H. H was to be heard in the applicant's absence, as her fear of the applicant might prevent her from her stating all relevant information. The District Court dismissed a request by H that the applicant's aggressive behaviour be assessed by an expert. The oral evidence was taken on the same day. Neither the Presiding Judge nor any of t