CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 février 1998

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. February 1998 Paulsen-Medalen and Svensson v. Sweden - 16817/90 Judgment 19.2.1998 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Reasonable time Length of proceedings relating to restrictions on a mother’s access to her two sons who had been taken into public care and alleged impossibility for the father of one of them to have determined by a court his right of access to his son: violation; no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Mother’s complaint (the first applicant) Only phase of the domestic proceedings that had given rise to misgivings in the case was between 22 January 1991, when first applicant applied for leave to appeal to Supreme Administrative Court, and 28 June 1993, when that court upheld lower courts’ judgments in respect of the restrictions on access – did not transpire from evidence that delay due to her conduct or to complexity of case – the authority concerned could not be said to have acted with the exceptional diligence required by Article 6 § 1 in such cases. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). B.   Father’s complaint (the second applicant) While it was unclear whether a father who did not have custody or did not enjoy access rights pursuant to a court order or agreement could claim a right of access under section 14 of the 1990 Act, this was not excluded by its wording (“a parent or other person who has custody of [the child]”) – fact that the maternal grandparents of second applicant’s son, although outside category of persons referred to in section 14, were able to obtain formal decision on access, suggested that such decision could also have been taken in respect of the applicant father – in response to his request for and query about access, social authorities had denied that a person other than the custody holder enjoyed access rights – however, applicant had not pursued the matter when invited to discuss access arrangements or otherwise – he had furnished no particulars in support of his submission that he had specifically requested, and that relevant authority had been unwilling or unable to take, a formal decision on his request for access. In these circumstances, Court not persuaded by second applicant’s claim that he, as a “parent”, could not have obtained decision of kind in issue – moreover, not established that it would have been impossible for him to institute judicial review proceedings under section 41 of the 1990 Act in respect of a decision refusing him access. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLES 8 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION Second applicant’s complaint under Articles 8 and 13 referred to same facts as under Article 6 § 1 complaint. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: compensation awarded on equitable basis (unanimously). B.   Legal costs   : awarded in part (unanimously).   © 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