CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 14 mars 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s5E71CDDF { width:2.64pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sF9A986A5 { width:12.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     180   14.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF K. and T. v. Finland   Wednesday 14   March   2001 at 9.00 a.m.     The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by a mother and her cohabitant (the applicant father), who are Finnish nationals born respectively in 1964 and 1968 and living in Finland.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the placement of their children, M. and J., in public care, the authorities’ refusal to reunite the family, and the applicants’ restricted visiting rights to their children.   The applicants complain that J. was placed in public care the day she was born, without having been given an opportunity to bond with the applicants. The care order in respect of M., issued even though he had already been voluntarily placed at the children’s home at the relevant time, allegedly caused him serious mental trauma and unnecessary suffering. The authorities also failed to inform the applicants in advance of their intention to place the children in public care.   They further claim that the Social Welfare Board and the courts failed to carry out a proper examination of their request for the reunification of their family and that the access restrictions were excessive. Most recently, the care orders were upheld on account of K.’s unstable state of health around the time when she gave birth to her fourth child in April 1995. She claims her health deteriorated because the social welfare officials had given her to understand that this baby might also be placed in public care.   Complaints   The applicants complain that their right to respect for their family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been violated on account of the placement of the children in public care and the subsequent care measures. They also complain that they were denied an effective remedy, guaranteed under Article 13 of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26   October   1994 and transferred to the European Court of Human Rights on 1   November   1998.   On 11 May 1999 the Vice President of the Fourth Section, as President of the Chamber, decided, in the children’s interest (under Rule 33 §§ 3 and 4 of the Rules of Court), that the identity of the applicants should remain confidential and that the documents in the case file should not be public. On 8   June   1999, after having held an oral hearing in camera on the admissibility and merits of the application, the Fourth Chamber declared the application partly admissible.   In its judgment of 27   April 2000, the Chamber held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 in respect of the decisions to take the children into public care and the refusal to terminate the care. The Chamber further held (unanimously) that there had been no violation of Article 13. The applicants were awarded 40,000 Finnish marks each for non-pecuniary damage and 5,190 Finnish marks, less the amount already paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid, for legal costs and expenses. The concurring opinion of the Finnish judge, Matti Pellonpää, is annexed to the judgment.   On 24 July 2000, the Government of Finland requested, under Article 43   §   1 of the Convention, that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber, arguing that there was no violation of Article 8. The Panel of the Grand Chamber accepted their request on 4   October   2000.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Christos Rozakis (Greek), Georg Ress (German), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges , Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), substitute judges ,   and also Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar .           Representatives of the parties   Government:   Holger Rotkirch and Arto Kosonen , Agents , Piia-Liisa Heiliö ,     Anne Aho-Eagling and Jorma Piha , Advisers ;   Applicants:   Juhani Kortteinen , Counsel , and Anu Suomela , Adviser .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.