CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 septembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 10 September 1999 Lindelöf v. Sweden (dec.) - 22771/93 Decision 7.9.1999 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Statements by the authorities indicating that a father is guilty of sexual abuse of his daughter in spite of the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against him: admissible Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Child remaining in public care despite exonerating evidence produced by parents: admissible The third applicant, born in 1979, is mentally retarded. The first two applicants are her parents. In June 1992 she was admitted to a child psychiatric ward for examination after suspicions arose that she had been sexually abused. From July 1992 she was placed under public care, her father being suspected of having abused her. In September 1992, her father was officially notified of the suspicions. In November 1992, however, the public prosecutor decided not to initiate proceedings given the lack of evidence. Although the decision became final in February 1993, the child remained in public care. The Social Council rejected the parents’ request for further contact with their child. The County Administrative Court, examining the parents’ appeal, found that the access restrictions were justified in order to protect the child from being abused by her father again. In the meantime, the parents had requested that the public care be terminated, which the Social Council also refused. They appealed to the County Administrative Court, submitting a number of expert opinions on their daughter’s illness. The court, despite these expert opinions, decided that the child should stay in public care. In May 1995, the parents eventually obtained from the Administrative Court of Appeal a judgment according to which the care should come to an end, nothing suggesting that the child’s development would be disrupted if she were to live with her parents again. Admissible under Article 6 § 2 and 8.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes