CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2000

.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 19 June 2000 Lindelöf v. Sweden - 22771/93 Judgment 20.6.2000 [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 despite the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against him: friendly settlement The third applicant, born in 1979, is mentally retarded. The first two applicants are her parents. In 1992 she was placed in public care, her father being suspected of having abused her. However, the public prosecutor decided not to initiate proceedings, on the ground that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The child nevertheless remained in public care. The Social Council rejected the parents’ request for additional access to their child and the County Administrative Court, examining the parents’ appeal, found that the access restrictions were justified in order to protect the child from being improperly exploited 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 which, despite a number of expert opinions submitted by them in respect of the child’s illness, decided that the child should stay in public care. In 1995 the parents eventually obtained from the Administrative Court of Appeal a judgment according to which the care should come to an end, there being nothing to suggest that the child’s development would be disrupted if she were returned to her parents. The parties have reached a friendly settlement providing for an ex gratia payment of 2,100,000 kronor (SEK) to the applicants. The Government expressed regret for the distress caused to the applicants.   © 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