CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 février 1992

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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 1992 Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden - 12963/87 Judgment 25.2.1992 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Respect for family life Restrictions on access between mother and son taken into public care: 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.   SCOPE OF THE CASE As delimited by the Commission's admissibility decision, case concerned only applicants' complaints against restrictions on access to each other, including communication by correspondence and telephone. II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 1.   Not disputed that restrictions complained of amounted to interferences with applicants' right to respect for family life and correspondence. 2.   Interferences were "in accordance with the law": (a)   Total prohibition on access, being imposed temporarily for a period of two months, had a basis in Swedish law, which contained various safeguards. (b)   Limitations on contacts by mail and telephone were authorised under Swedish law as interpreted by Swedish appellate administrative courts; although only some of the case-law pre-dated judgments in present case, subsequent case-law was capable of illustrating previous understanding of the law. Furthermore, impugned access restrictions clearly covered communication by correspondence and telephone. 3.   Interferences had legitimate aims of protecting son's "health or morals" and "rights and freedoms". 4.   Aggregate of restrictions imposed was disproportionate to legitimate aims pursued and thus not "necessary in a democratic society": depriving applicants of almost every means of contact for one and a half years was particularly far-reaching and had to be supported by strong reasons and consistent with ultimate aim of reuniting applicants - although relevant, reasons adduced by Government were of general nature and did not sufficiently show necessity of measures - questionable whether they were consistent with that ultimate aim. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Alleged absence of domestic remedies to challenge restrictions on access. (a)   In respect of the mother: complaint not pursued. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimous). (b)   In respect of the son: not established that mother prevented from appealing against restrictions on his behalf. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 1.   Compensation awarded, on equitable basis, for non-pecuniary damage occasioned by violation found. 2.   Claim for reimbursement of legal fees and expenses accepted, but only in part. Conclusion : Sweden to pay specified sums (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