CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; 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. April 1992 Rieme v. Sweden - 12366/86 Judgment 22.4.1992 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Implementation of public care of applicant's daughter and subsequent prohibition on him from removing her from a foster home: no violation I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE As delimited by Commission's admissibility decision, case concerned only applicant's complaint that Swedish authorities had hindered reunion with his child. Government's preliminary objection that domestic remedies not exhausted in respect of facts which occurred after 26   March   1986 (date of last Swedish court decision in the case) rejected: apart from passage of time, no new facts could justify fresh domestic proceedings - Court competent to take into account facts constituting a continuation of those underlying complaints declared admissible. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Existence of an interference Implementation of public care order and subsequent prohibition on removal: clearly constituted, and this was not disputed, an interference with applicant's right to respect for family life. B.   Justification for the interference 1.   "In accordance with the law" (a)   no indication that placement of the child in foster home was inconsistent with Swedish law or effected with a view to hindering reunion; (b)   having regard to safeguards against arbitrary interferences, scope of discretion conferred by Swedish law relating   to prohibition on removal was reasonable and acceptable for purposes of Article 8; (c)   in instant case access arrangements resulted from co-operation and not established that such arrangements imposed upon applicant contrary to Swedish law. 2.   Legitimate aims Protection of the "health" and "the rights and freedoms" of the child. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Prohibition on removal was justified by relevant and sufficient reasons at least up to 26 March 1986 and was not disproportionate to aims pursued - having regard to their margin of appreciation, authorities could not be said not to have had relevant and sufficient reasons for maintaining prohibition thereafter. Conclusion : no violation (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