The applicants , a group of NORP nationals , are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

s , may be summarised as follows .

The first applicant , [ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE , GPE . On DATE he claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour , known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period , and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees of coal mines had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time -barred .

[ A.B.K. ] , born in DATE , resides in Brzesko Szczecińskie . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ L.H. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formation of forced labour known as Mining battalions . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not had and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formation of forced labour known as Mining battalions . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not had and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ S.T. ] , born in DATE , resides in LOC . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ P.P. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

PERSON , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ ORG ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ S.O. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for inkind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in Police . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( new ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( new ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( new ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ W.W. ] , born in DATE , resides in PERSON . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

PERSON , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant worked in the coal mine while doing his obligatory military service . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ MONEY ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formation of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ M.A. ] , born in DATE , resides in ORG . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ W.S. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour military service as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE resides in LOC . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and DATE ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ E.G. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . In DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour know as ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim as time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL November DATE in the forced labour formations known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ PERSON ] , born inCARDINAL , resides in PERSON . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ S.K. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE to DATE in the formations of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ J.M. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formation of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ GPE ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing his compulsory military service from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the formation of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ A.W. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ORG ( new ) from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from CARDINAL DATE to DATE in the formation of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant worked in the coal mine while doing his obligatory military service . The applicant further claimed for FAC ( new ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period and CARDINAL as an equivalent for in - kind payment in coal to which employees had been entitled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .

[ A.B. ] , born in DATE , resides in GPE . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation of CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ from ORG for forced labour which he had been doing during his compulsory military service from DATE in the formation of forced labour known as ORG . The applicant worked in the coal mine while doing his obligatory military service . The applicant further claimed for CARDINAL ( old ) PLZ as an equivalent for holiday , which he had not taken during this period . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , considering that it was time - barred .


Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

NORP CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINALK. and T.FinlandCARDINALAt the beginning of the events relevant to the application , PERSON had a daughter , PERSON , and a son , PERSON , born in DATE and DATE respectively . PERSON ’s father is PERSON M. ’s father is PERSON From DATE to May CARDINAL PERSON was voluntarily hospitalised for DATE , having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia . From DATE and from DATE , she was again hospitalised for DATE on account of this illness . In DATE she was hospitalised for DATE , diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis . It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family from DATE .

The applicants were initially cohabiting from DATE . In DATE both PERSON and PERSON were living with them . From DATE PERSON and ORG were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In DATE custody of PERSON was transferred to ORG and she was ordered to live with him .

PERSON was again hospitalised from CARDINAL April to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL May to DATE , as well as from DATE , on account of psychoses . She was in compulsory care DATE . According to a medical report dated DATE , PERSON was paranoid and psychotic .

On DATE , according to the social welfare authorities’ records , there had been a discussion between a social worker and PERSON ’s mother . PERSON ’s mother had said that her daughter ’s health condition was really bad and that PERSON had destroyed a childhood picture of hers , a wedding photo of the mother , broken a glass and “ pierced the eyes ” of all appearing in the photos . PERSON ’s mother had said that she was tired with the situation , as she did not get any support from the mental health authorities . She had added that she was worried and afraid that “ again something must happen before PERSON is admitted to care ” .

On DATE M. was placed under observation with a view to determining whether she should be placed in compulsory psychiatric care , having initially been diagnosed as suffering from psychosis . The conditions for compulsory care were not considered to be met but she remained in voluntary care until CARDINAL DATE .

Allegedly , J. did not allow PERSON , P. and PERSON to meet . In DATE PERSON ’s access to P. was further limited by the courts . At the time she was pregnant .

According to the records of the social welfare authorities , PERSON showed signs of behavioural problems . On DATE , a psychologist reported how PERSON had played with CARDINAL dolls saying - in very vulgar words - that they were performing sexual acts . On DATE PERSON was said to have broken a mirror in the presence of PERSON who had kept repeating : “ mother broke the mirror ... ” .

Notes of the social authorities of , inter alia , CARDINAL and DATE state that games which PERSON played and pictures he drew were of a destructive nature . According to the notes of the last - mentioned day , he had lately , in joint singing exercises of the day - care home , shown enormous hate , threatening “ to kill everybody ” . The occasions when PERSON fetched him were described as “ an unpleasant show ” , PERSON shouting and hitting his mother who did not react . It was noted , however , that the doll plays with sexual connotations had disappeared .

On DATE it was reported by the social welfare authorities that when PERSON and PERSON had come to the children ’s home where PERSON was staying , the latter had undergone a total change in his behaviour , turning into anger , hate , swearing etc . T. had told in the children ’s home that he was really tired with the situation and that in his view PERSON was in need of hospitalisation . When a visit to the health centre had been suggested to her , she had become very angry .

According to the records of the social welfare authorities , there had been a discussion between PERSON , her mother , ORG and a number of social and mental health care officials , on DATE , during which it was mentioned that the authorities might have to intervene , from the child protection point of view , with PERSON ’s upbringing in a more drastic way than had been the case so far . It appeared that in connection with PERSON ’s recent hospitalisation T. had “ forcibly ” taken her from a restaurant , which had made PERSON furious , with the consequence that she had thrown things around , for example the micro wave oven had ended up on the floor . T. had said that PERSON was unable to control herself .

On DATE a social welfare official decided on behalf of ORG ( perusturvalautakunta , grundtrygghetsnämnden ) of PERSON to place LOC in a children ’s home for a period of DATE . This was to be regarded as a short - term support measure pursuant to the DATE LAW ( lastensuojelulaki , barnskyddslag CARDINAL ; “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . The applicants had been consulted , together with PERSON ’s mother and sister , on DATE , in order to find an open care measure which would be functional . According to the records held of that meeting , no such practical measure had been proposed by any of the participants . The applicants had then been heard again on DATE and had not objected to the placing of PERSON in a children ’s home .

In an opinion , requested by ORG , doctors GPE and GPE , on CARDINAL DATE , considered that PERSON was not at that time able to care for PERSON , but that her mental state could not be regarded as permanently preventing her from caring for him . Doctors GPE and GPE served at the hospital of H. , where the applicant had been cared for since DATE during the periods indicated above .

On DATE , the social welfare official who had decided on DATE to place ORG in a children ’s home informed in writing ORG and the local hospital of S. that she was very worried about the health of PERSON and her forthcoming baby . She requested the hospitals to contact her immediately at the time of PERSON ’s arrival in hospital and , especially , at the time of her delivery . She also expressed a wish that the health care professionals should pay special attention to the relationship between the mother and the new - born baby from the very beginning .

On DATE PERSON was taken into a district hospital , where she gave birth to PERSON on DATE . According to the hospital records , the mother stayed calm during the delivery . After the delivery a written decision concerning an emergency care order , according to which the child was not to be given to the mother , was served on the hospital . The child was accordingly transmitted to the children ’s ward . The mother ’s behaviour in the ward was later found to be somewhat restless but not clearly disordered . It was mentioned in the records that she understood the situation and wanted to leave the hospital DATE . Medication to prevent the secretion of milk was prescribed . It seems that PERSON left the hospital on DATE , i.e. the following morning , without a post - natal examination . She went to her mother ’s place where she started pushing an empty baby carriage around the rooms .

J. was immediately placed in provisional public care in pursuance of LAW of LAW . After the birth of their child , PERSON and T. were informed of the decision by CARDINAL social workers at the hospital of H. The Social Director , who decided on behalf of ORG , noted that PERSON ’s mental state had been unstable during the end of her pregnancy . He considered that the baby ’s health would be endangered since PERSON had found out about the plans to place the baby in public care . The Social Director finally considered that the baby ’s father , PERSON , could not guarantee its development and safety . In addition the ORG referred to the family ’s long - lasting difficulties , i.e. PERSON ’s serious illness and occasionally uncontrolled emotional reactions which could be traumatic for the children , T. ’s inability to care for both PERSON and PERSON , PERSON ’s inability to receive guidance , the impossibility of placing the whole responsibility for ORG development on ORG , and the impossibility of providing open - care support measures to the necessary extent . The applicants were not heard prior to the decision . On DATE the applicants were also notified in writing of the decision to take the new - born baby into public care . The notification was also faxed to PERSON

On DATE the ORG also placed LAW in provisional public care , citing principally the same reasons as in his decision of DATE concerning J.

On DATE ORG took note of the provisional public care orders and prohibited all unsupervised access between on the one hand , PERSON , and , on the other hand , PERSON and PERSON respectively . The number of supervised visits , however , was not restricted . ORG decided to continue the preparation for taking PERSON and J. into care .

At the family centre a meeting was held by social welfare workers , on DATE , before the arrival of the baby from the hospital and in the absence of the applicants . It is mentioned in the report that there was a plan to prohibit the mother ’s visits for DATE on the ground that her reactions could not be predicted as she had , for example , broken things at home . After this initial period she would be allowed without restriction to visit the baby , but have to be accompanied by her personal nurse . However , this plan was not executed . There is a note in the DATE report of DATE , according to which “ the mother may come with her personal nurse if she wants . Other visitors not allowed for the time being . ”

K. was asked to appear with T. at the social welfare office on DATE at TIME in order to be informed of the decision of DATE on PERSON by the Social Director . On DATE , PERSON and PERSON ( PERSON ’s biological father ) were notified in writing of the decision of DATE . The notification was also faxed to PERSON

On DATE PERSON was hospitalised voluntarily at the hospital of H. on account of psychosis , having obtained a referral from a doctor at a health care centre . She was treated there until DATE .

On DATE J. was placed in the family centre . T. visited her DATE .

In DATE , ORG moved away from the applicants’ home , having been told by the social welfare officials that he had to break off his relationship with PERSON “ if he wanted to keep ” J. The applicants nevertheless continued their relationship .

On DATE ORG upheld the provisional care orders concerning PERSON , invoking reasons similar to those mentioned in the emergency care orders ( see § CARDINAL above ) , and prolonged the access restriction until DATE . PERSON was allowed to see the children only in the company of her personal nurse . ORG essentially considered that PERSON ’s state of health remained unstable ; that she was suffering from aggressive and uncontrolled emotional moods ; and that the public care proceedings were a mentally strenuous ordeal for a patient . As regards PERSON , the ORG therefore believed that her personal security could be jeopardised if access were to take place without supervision . As regards PERSON , the ORG feared that PERSON ’s visits to the children ’s home “ could no longer be controlled by its staff , which would not be in his interest ” . Before the decisions of DATE the applicants had been heard and expressed their objection to the care decisions envisaged .

On DATE , PERSON visited both her children , accompanied by her personal nurse . The diary notes mentioned that it was “ a difficult situation ” .

On DATE , ORG moved to the family unit of the family centre with J.

From DATE PERSON was again hospitalised in voluntary care at the open ward of the hospital of PERSON on account of a psychosis . She , however , left the hospital DATE . On DATE she was placed under observation with a view to determining whether she should be placed in compulsory psychiatric care . On DATE she was committed to compulsory psychiatric care . According to the patient ’s documents her relatives had earlier been worried about her and contacted the hospital in order to get her into hospital care . They reported that PERSON had disappeared from her home , where she had behaved in an unsettled and aggressive manner . Her hospitalisation lasted until DATE , i.e. DATE .

During the period of DATE to CARDINAL DATE PERSON visited her children at their respective children ’s homes . During the visits she was accompanied by her personal nurse from the hospital , who was in contact with the social welfare authorities and arranged the visits according to ORG ’s state of mental health . On the basis of the centre ’s diary , she had visited J. twice during this period .

According to a statement made by a social welfare worker on DATE , ORG had taken good care of CARDINAL , first at the hospital until DATE and later on at a family centre . It was agreed that J. would stay at the family centre and that T. would visit her every other day . J. would visit her father for the first time from CARDINAL to DATE , during which time T. would organise her christening . The intention was that the baby could move in with her father in the future .

T ’s travel expenses to the centre were paid for by the social welfare authorities . From the centre ’s records it can be deduced that ORG succeeded in creating a relationship with the baby and learned to take good care of her . The home leaves were spent with T. first at his mother ’s house and later in his new home .

On DATE , ORG referred both public care orders to ORG ( lääninoikeus , länsrätten ) of GPE and PERSON for confirmation , as the applicants had opposed them . In support of its referrals ORG submitted a statement by a social welfare official dated DATE . According to the statement , ORG would not be able to care both for PERSON and the new - born J. alone , since PERSON was at the same home and had been psychotic for DATE . T. had been in contact with J. at the children ’s home CARDINAL times a week . While staying in a flat attached to a municipal children ’s home , he had cared for J. for DATE and had subsequently cared for DATE out of DATE in his new home . ORG had therefore begun investigating whether it would be possible to entrust him with the responsibility for J. with the help of support measures taken by ORG .

On DATE , J. was christened in the presence of PERSON , GPE

A consultation was held at the children ’s home , on DATE , in the presence of T. According to the statement , PERSON ’s mental health was very unstable and her psychiatric treatment was expected to have to be continued for DATE . T. , however , had expressed his hopes that PERSON and he could , together , take care of J. in the future . It was agreed that PERSON would stay at the children ’s home and would visit ORG from DATE until DATE , beginning from DATE . T. would visit J. on other DATE according to an agreement to be made with the children ’s home in this respect .

NORP In the course of the custody and access dispute concerning P. , a social worker had , on CARDINAL DATE , testified before ORG ( kihlakunnanoikeus , häradsrätten ) of S. that she had noticed nothing alarming in the applicants’ family situation , nor that the family conditions would have differed from those of “ normal families ” in any significant way . The social worker therefore considered PERSON suitable to bring up children , regardless of the fact that she had received treatment for mental illness . The social worker stated that PERSON had always kept her children “ clean and healthy ” . At least with the help of her mother and with some support measures it would be possible for PERSON to act as her children ’s custodian .

According to P. ’s father , who also testified before ORG , PERSON had shown paranoid features in her behaviour , alleging that “ unknown people visited her home during her absence ” . He also said that PERSON had dyed her hair as she had thought that her “ double ” had been seen in the neighbourhood and she wanted to be distinguishable from her double . Several witnesses testified that PERSON had recently been voluntarily placed at a mental hospital and was receiving medication for her mental illness . It was also said that P. was de facto living with her grandmother , who had the DATE responsibility for her care .

On DATE , ORG confirmed the care order concerning PERSON , considering that PERSON had been mentally ill ; that the applicants had had conflicts “ as a result of which ORG had moved away from their home in DATE ” ; that because of PERSON ’s illness and the family ’s other problems the applicants had been unable to provide adequate care to J. ; that the care support provided to the family had not sufficiently improved the family ’s situation and that the measures could not be expected to satisfy ORG care needs . No hearing was held . PERSON appealed against the decision .

On DATE , ORG prolonged the access restriction until DATE .

The following notes of a social welfare official appear among those in the case records of ORG :

( translation from NORP )

“ DATE :

CARDINAL ... In addition , the importance of future access between J. and T. has now been questioned , since J. ’s placement in [ public foster care ] is under preparation . It will be difficult for T. to give J. up , ...

CARDINAL DATE :

K. ... states that she is considering moving [ back ] together [ with T. ] when she is discharged from the hospital on DATE . ... [ Her ] wish is that PERSON and J. would be placed in the same [ foster ] family . ...

DATE :

... T. agrees to J. ’s placement in a [ foster ] family . ...

DATE :

... T. is slightly opposed to J. ’s placement in a [ foster ] family . ... It is again explained [ to him ] why J. can not live with him as long as [ the applicants ] continue their relationship . ...

DATE :

... The essential issue from ORG point of view is [ the applicants’ ] internal relationship ; if [ it ] continues , J. can not stay at home with T. ... The alternatives are : J. comes back home to ORG or is placed in [ foster care ] . ... [ He ] can provide the basic care and upbringing alone provided he receives certain support . ...

DATE :

... The access between PERSON and PERSON have been successful now that ORG has been attending [ the visits ] . ... ”

CARDINAL DATE

... The father has been responsible for the care of the institutionalised child . He has been active and acted on his own initiative . He has fed , clothed and bathed the child . He has also taken care of the child ’s outings and of the rocking the baby to sleep . The father has treated the child naturally and with consideration ; he has talked a lot to the child and showed her tender emotions . He has enjoyed his time with the child and within the terms of the child . The father has treated the child patiently and with warmth , taking into consideration the needs of the child .

The mother has visited the child CARDINAL times and stayed only for a moment each time .

... J. has had a possibility to a regular interrelation with CARDINAL person taking care of her , i.e. , with her father . A safe relationship with the father has created to the child a feeling of basic safety , which acts as basis for positive development of her emotional life . J. has the necessary resources to grow up and to develop in order to be a healthy and well - balanced child . Taking into consideration the circumstances , the foundation for the family placement is good . ”

On DATE , PERSON was discharged from the hospital of H.

On DATE , ORG confirmed the care order concerning PERSON , repeating the reasons put forward in its decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning J. No hearing was held .

In their appeal to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) against the confirmation of the public care order concerning PERSON , the applicants were represented by LAW ( yleinen oikeusavustaja , allmänna rättsbiträdet ) of S.

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG placed J. in a foster home at GPE , QUANTITY away from the applicants’ home . PERSON joined her on DATE . The foster parents had no children of their own . Social welfare officials told both the applicants and the foster parents that ORG and PERSON ’s placement would last “ for DATE ” . The applicants had proposed that the children ’s public care be implemented in the homes of relatives .

On DATE , ORG drew up a care plan concerning the implementation of the public care . The ORG alternative care plan was allegedly ignored . For instance , the children could not meet their maternal grandmother in her home .

After the adoption of the care plan on DATE the applicants requested that the access restriction be alleviated . For instance , T. had been permitted to see PERSON only once a month .

On DATE , the applicants requested , inter alia , that ORG should draw up a public care plan aiming at the reunification of the family .

On DATE , the social welfare authorities organised a meeting in order to revise the care plan of DATE . The applicants and their representative did not attend the meeting .

On DATE , the Social Director restricted both applicants’ access to the children to CARDINAL DATE visit at the foster home , where access was to take place under supervision during TIME . The Director considered that the grounds for public care still existed . He considered that , although the applicants were dissatisfied with the visits set out in the care plan , affording the children an unlimited right to see their parents would create an obstacle to their successful placement . The applicants appealed .

On DATE , the applicants requested that ORG proceed to the revocation of the public care of PERSON and J.

On DATE , the Social Director allegedly told the applicants that any further children born to them would also be placed in public care . According to the Government , the Social Director had only told them , when expressly asked , that it was possible that any further children born would be taken into public care .

In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE submitted at ORG request PERSON , a specialist in psychiatry , commented on the possibility of revoking the public care orders . She concluded that PERSON ’s mental state would not prevent her from acting as the children ’s custodian . According to PERSON , the struggle introduced by PERSON to have the care terminated and access restrictions loosened gave evidence of psychological resources . She noted , inter alia , that T. was PERSON ’s closest support in the care and upbringing of the children . Also PERSON ’s mother , at the time her guardian ad litem , was ready to help in caring for them . PERSON , however , added that she could not , as an adult psychiatrist , take any stand as regards the interests of the children . PERSON opinion was also based on a report submitted by PERSON . , a psychologist , who had come to the same conclusion as regarded PERSON ’s ability to act as her children ’s custodian .

On DATE , ORG extended the time for PERSON ’s appeal against the confirmation of the care order made in respect of J. On DATE the ORG rejected the appeal against the confirmation of the care order of DATE concerning M.

The Public Legal Adviser advised against lodging a request with a view to having the care orders revoked .

On DATE , ORG held an oral hearing concerning the access restriction imposed on CARDINAL DATE . It took evidence from CARDINAL psychiatrists , who had interviewed PERSON of them , Dr PERSON , did not know PERSON personally but commented on a diagnosis concerning her mental state by indicating that PERSON had a tendency to react in a psychotic manner to conflict situations . PERSON stated that PERSON ’s state of health did not prevent her from caring for her children . Consequently , if her illness had been the reason for the access restriction , that reason no longer existed .

In a written expert opinion , requested by ORG and submitted to ORG , PERSON , a child psychiatrist , was of the opinion that the children should be permanently cared for by the foster home and that the applicants’ visits should , for the time being , be prohibited so as to protect the children and the foster home . According to the applicants , PERSON had not met any of the applicants or children , nor had he consulted with the other psychiatrists before making his proposal .

On DATE , ORG upheld the access restriction issued on CARDINAL DATE . It noted that neither of the witnesses who had been heard orally had been willing to state any opinion in regard to the children ’s development . It reasoned , inter alia , as follows :

( translation from NORP )

“ ... [ By allowing ] access to take place once DATE and [ by allowing contact by virtue of correspondence ] it will be ensured that the children will retain knowledge about their biological parents . If the grounds for the public care later cease to exist , a reunification of the family will thus be possible . ... ”

ORG dismissed the applicants’ request for cost - free proceedings , since the relevant legislation did not cover disputes concerning access restrictions . At the ORG ’s hearing , the applicants were nevertheless assisted by PERSON .

On DATE , PERSON appealed against the care order in respect of J. as confirmed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE social welfare officials revised the public care plan , proposing that the children meet the applicants once a month on neutral premises at the Family Advice Centre of K. , where the foster parents were living . The applicants objected thereto , considering that this would have entailed a further restriction of their access to the children . Instead they requested CARDINAL meetings DATE , CARDINAL of which was to be at their place of residence . On DATE , they demanded a separate written decision concerning their access request in order to enable them to appeal the same .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicants that there were no longer any grounds for the access restriction . Meetings between the applicants and the children were nevertheless only authorised for TIME once a month on LOC chosen by ORG . The meetings would also be supervised .

In his decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG confirmed that there were no longer grounds for the access restriction . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed the decision of DATE . The applicants appealed .

K. was hospitalised from DATE and from CARDINAL DATE , apparently on account of psychosis .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG request of CARDINAL DATE that the care order be revoked , stating as follows :

( translation from NORP )

“ At the moment the health situation of the children ’s mother , PERSON , is better and the family situation has changed also in other respects in comparison with the situation in DATE when the decisions to take the children into care were made .

According to PERSON , a specialist in psychiatry , PERSON still has “ a lot of instability in her emotional life as well as fragility , brought by DATE experiences and the diagnosis of mental illness for which she needs - still for a long time - therapeutic support and treatment . A regular medication is also needed in order to guarantee the continuation of her well - being and to make it possible for her to manage in open care and to act as a custodian of her children . PERSON , however , did not give her more precise opinion as to PERSON ’s ability to take care of and bring up her children even though PERSON was explicitly asked to give such an opinion .

ORG can act as the custodian of her children . She can not , however , be responsible for the needs and education of the children - not even with the support of ORG and the open care support measures . Their ability to act as educators taking care of the children ’s needs is inadequate .

According to the statement given by the children ’s clinic of the municipality of ORG , the ability of PERSON and T. to understand the needs of the children and to respond to them is very limited . Even though ORG is capable of interaction with the children , also he finds it difficult to respond to the needs of the children ’s emotional life . PERSON is also incapable of creating an emotional relationship with the children . At an earlier stage , PERSON , a psychologist at the local health care centre , has reached the same conclusion in her statement given during the custody proceedings concerning PERSON ’s oldest child . In his expert statement PERSON , a child and youth psychiatrist , reached a similar conclusion . Already in DATE PERSON realised that PERSON ’s problem is related to the diminishment of the boundaries between her and her children . She stated that PERSON melts herself and her children into CARDINAL entirety without being able to see the single and individual nature of the children . According to GPE , PERSON is also unable to take into account the children ’s needs in accordance with their age . Dr PERSON finds that the children do not seem to be independent objects to PERSON but that she sees them as so - called “ self - objects ” . She finds it difficult to realise that children are love- and care - needing individual human beings . Instead , she sees as if they were meant for her own use only . ”

The applicants appealed on DATE , also requesting that they be granted cost - free proceedings and afforded free legal representation . They also requested an oral hearing .

DATE . On DATE , a further child , NORP , was born to the applicants . Having given birth , PERSON was , on CARDINAL DATE , committed to compulsory psychiatric care and treated at the hospital of ORG until CARDINAL DATE , while NORP was being cared for by T. According to the observation of a specialist in psychiatry , dated DATE , PERSON “ must have been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for a longer time ” .

On DATE , ORG granted the applicants cost - free proceedings and appointed PERSON as their representative in the case concerning their appeal against ORG decision of DATE . It decided not to hold a hearing in respect of the applicants’ request for a revocation of the care orders . It provided the parties with an opportunity to supplement their written observations .

As regards the applicants’ appeal against ORG decisions of DATE and DATE , ORG considered , on DATE , that the revised care plan drawn up on DATE had already entailed an access restriction which had been renewed by new decisions later , without the applicants having been properly heard , in respect of their access request . The matter was referred back to ORG for new consideration .

In the light of ORG decision the Acting Social Director , on DATE , formally restricted the applicants’ access to the children to CARDINAL meeting a DATE up to CARDINAL DATE . The meetings were to take place in the foster home . In addition , the foster parents were to visit the applicants with the children DATE . The Director considered , inter alia , that it was important that the children settle themselves in their growth environment in the foster family . Closer contacts with their parents would mean change and insecurity as well as the creation of a new crisis in their development . The process of settling which had started well would be jeopardised . For the children ’s progress it was therefore necessary that their situation remain stable and secure . The Director ’s decision was confirmed by ORG on DATE . The applicants appealed .

With regard to the justification of the care order concerning ORG , on DATE , granted PERSON cost - free proceedings as from DATE and appointed ORG as her representative . It upheld ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE , ORG rejected the ORG appeals of DATE without holding an oral hearing . The ORG noted , inter alia , that according to medical certificates , PERSON ’s state of health had improved but her emotional life was still unstable . She therefore continued to be in need of psychotherapy and medication . In addition , a further child had been born to the applicants and PERSON had again been treated at the hospital of NORP These CARDINAL factors had caused an additional strain militating against a revocation of the care orders .

On DATE , ORG rejected the ORG appeal against the access restriction confirmed on DATE .

On DATE , social welfare officials revised the public care plan , proposing that the children meet the applicants once a month in the premises of a school at the children ’s place of residence . As the applicants were not present when the proposal was made , the care plan was again revised on DATE insofar as the access restriction was concerned . The applicants then proposed that the children meet the applicants without supervision once DATE . The public care plan was , however , revised as proposed by social welfare officials .

DATE . On DATE , the ORG restricted both ORG access to the children , until DATE , to CARDINAL DATE visit in the premises of a school at the children ’s place of residence , where access was to take place under supervision during TIME . CARDINAL of the foster parents was also ordered to be present at the time of the access . The Director ’s decision was confirmed by ORG on DATE . The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG , requesting an oral hearing . The court obtained a statement from a child psychiatrist , PERSON , who was also recommended by the ORG representative to ORG . Dr PERSON states , inter alia , as follows :

( translation from NORP )

“ The right of access of PERSON and J. to the persons close to them must primarily be examined in the light of their psychological growth and development and health . This point of view requires the examination of quality , permanency and continuance of their human relationships , because the psychological growth and development take place in interaction with human relationships . In my opinion the human relationships are to be examined from the children ’s point of view . ...

... In conclusion I note that before PERSON was placed in the children ’s home ... the mother had been in psychiatric hospital treatment CARDINAL times , in total DATE . Thus PERSON had lived with his mother for DATE , i.e. DATE . The longest that they spent together was DATE . ... T. has , as “ stepfather ” , helped to look after PERSON for at DATE . ... foster parents have so far looked after PERSON for DATE without interruption . ... In practice PERSON has not had any kind of relationship with his biological father ... .

In the light of the facts above , I note that the human relationships in the early childhood of PERSON have , due to the circumstances , been non - continuous , short - term and changing . The most stable and continuous relationships have been with the foster parents ... . Therefore , these relationships are the most relevant and important ones for the psychological growth and development of M.

... J. was born in DATE . She was taken into public care immediately after she was born . At first she stayed in FAC for a short time , and later at a reception home for small children . T. as the biological father of PERSON looked after her for DATE in DATE and DATE . J. was placed in the foster family , ... , in DATE , when she was DATE . So far J. has stayed with her foster family for DATE without interruption . J. is now DATE .

In the light of this , I note that , due to the circumstances , J. has not had any other significant and important relationships than those with her foster parents . The relationship of J. with the foster parents is of primary importance for her psychological growth and development . ...

... Especially from the point of view of the children but naturally also from the point of view of the foster parents , the foster family is a family to which the principles concerning family enshrined in LAW on the Rights of the Child and in LAW can be applied in the same way as to biological families . This point of view is especially important when , due to the circumstances , the biological family has not lived together .

In the light of facts given above , I note that the arrangements helping and supporting the foster parents of PERSON and J. are in the best interest of the children . The arrangement shall , in the first place , ensure the important , continuous and safe human relationships of PERSON and J. with the foster parents ... .

It is also important for the psychological growth and development of PERSON and J. that , in the safe and stable conditions offered by the foster family , they are able to maintain and create a good internalised picture of their biological parents ... from whom they have been separated because of the circumstances .

In my opinion this can be done by complying with the decision of DATE of ORG of S. , concerning the right of access . At present an unrestricted right of access or a right of access of the extent suggested by the applicants is not in the interest of the children , because the capability of PERSON and T. to fulfil the emotional needs of PERSON and J. is deficient , ... Such arrangements concerning the right of access clearly endanger the health and development of PERSON and J. In my opinion the question of an unrestricted right of access should be evaluated when the children have attained the age of CARDINAL . ”

In a statement of DATE Dr GPE stated that in her opinion PERSON ’s psychiatric state could not be regarded as an obstacle for PERSON ’s acting as the custodian of her daughter NORP

On DATE , the care plan was again revised by the social welfare authorities . The applicants had been informed of the time of the meeting concerning the revision of the care plan on home visits on DATE and DATE . Their representative had also been informed of the meeting by a letter sent on DATE . The applicants did not attend the meeting , and neither did their representative . The applicants were thus not explicitly heard in this respect but , as they had expressed their opinion on other occasions , the authorities recorded their point of view in the plan .

On DATE , ORG rejected the ORG appeal against ORG decision of DATE to restrict the applicants’ access right . ORG refused the ORG request for oral hearing .

Although the applicants had stated only in their rejoinder that the appeal was also made on behalf of NORP , ORG found in its decision that it was in part made in her name . The court stated that a person to whom the decision is directed , or a person upon whose right , duty or interest the decision has a direct effect , has the right of appeal . The court considered that the ORG ’s decision , which concerned NORP ’s GPE and GPE right of access , was not such a decision .

On DATE , the Social Director restricted the applicants’ , and consequently their youngest child R. ’s , access to GPE CARDINAL DATE visit of TIME in the LOC of a school at the children ’s place of residence until DATE . The applicants did not appeal .

The care plan was revised on DATE .

According to a statement made on DATE by Dr PERSON ( formerly PERSON ) , PERSON has not been hospitalised since DATE and her health has been stable since DATE . There have been no problems concerning the care of NORP ( who has lived with her parents all the time and has not been taken into care ) . It is recommended by PERSON that the social welfare authorities should reduce or finish control visits to the applicants’ home in order to give PERSON a possibility to settle down to normal life without constant supervision from the authorities .

The restriction orders were prolonged by the Social Director , on DATE , to last until DATE . The visits are to take place under supervision in the premises of a school at the children ’s place of residence . However , CARDINAL of the visits is to take place at the applicants’ home in the presence of the foster parents . The Social Director considered , inter alia , that the reunification of the family was not in sight as the foster family was now the children ’s factual home ; that the ORG access to the children DATE and through correspondence was enough to maintain the children ’s awareness of their biological parents ; and that closer contacts with the applicants would endanger the children ’s development and bring change and insecurity as well as create a new crisis in their development . The applicants appealed against this decision to ORG which , on DATE , rejected the appeal and upheld the ORG decisions . In the reasoning of the decisions , the ORG quotes both ORG and Dr J.P.

The ORG appeal against ORG decision of DATE concerning the right of access is currently pending before ORG ( formerly ORG ) .

According to the reports , written by the supervisor who attended the meetings of the children and the applicants during the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , the adults got on quite well together during the meetings . J. often plays games with PERSON When NORP was smaller , J. played by herself , but later it seems that the girls , PERSON and NORP , spend more time together . On the other hand , it seems that the first applicant makes very little contact with ORG According to the supervisor ’s description , especially in the earlier reports , the first applicant seems to have concentrated on NORP

Section CARDINAL of ORG and Right of Access Act ( laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta , lag ang . vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) defines what is meant by child custody and what is required from the custodian . According to its first paragraph , the objectives of custody are to ensure the well - being and the balanced development of a child according to its individual needs and wishes , and to ensure for a child close and affectionate relationships in particular with its parents .

ORG and Right of Access Act requires both the parents and authorities to ascertain the wishes and views of the child when making and executing a decision concerning the child , if this is possible in view of the age and stage of development of the child ( Sections CARDINAL.CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL ; and Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) . Court decisions concerning the custody and access of a child can not be executed against the will of a child who has attained DATE .

Also according to LAW ( lastensuojelulaki , barnskyddslag CARDINAL as amended by Act MONEY ) , a child who has attained DATE is given an independent right to be heard in most important child welfare decisions related to his or her person and to appeal therefrom .

NORP In situations where the child does not live with its parents or where they are separated because of need of protection or other corresponding reason , the child has in principle the right to keep up personal relations and contacts with its parents . However , this right can be limited on specific grounds and by certain procedures prescribed by law , for example , because of a danger and threat caused by contacts or on the basis of the best interests of the child ( LAW and Right of Access Act ; Sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of LAW ; Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention on the Rights of the Child ) .

According to LAW , a child is entitled to a secure and stimulating growing environment and to a harmonious and well - balanced development , and has a special right to protection . The objective of LAW is that a child will in all circumstances get such care and upbringing as is required by ORG .

NORP In case the parents or custodians of the child are not able to provide the child with sufficiently secure conditions for its growth and development , ORG and holders of its offices shall take the necessary measures in accordance with LAW . These measures include the assistance in open care referred to in Sections CARDINAL to DATE and the duty to take a child into care and provide substitute care referred to in LAW .

According to Section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended by LAW ) , when the need for child welfare is caused primarily by inadequate income , deficient living conditions or lack of housing , or when these factors constitute a serious obstacle to the rehabilitation of a child and family , or a young person in the process of becoming independent who had been a social welfare client before attaining DATE , local authorities must provide adequate financial support without delay , and correct deficiencies in housing conditions or provide housing according to need .

Assistance in open care referred to in LAW includes general assistance in accordance with LAW ( sosiaalihuoltolaki , socialvårdslag CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In addition to general assistance , special forms of assistance are mentioned : lay helper or supporting family ; adequate therapy ; holiday and recreational activities ; and assisting a child in his or her education and training , in job and home finding , and in his or her leisure activities and other personal needs , by providing financial and other support . The assistance shall be provided in co - operation with the child or young person and its parents or other persons caring for them .

According to LAW of LAW , ORG shall take a child into care and provide substitute care for him or her if ( a ) the child ’s health or development is seriously endangered by lack of care or other conditions at home , or if the child seriously endangers his or her health and development by abuse of intoxicants , by committing an illegal act other than a minor offence , or by any other comparable behaviour , ( b ) the measures of assistance in open care are not appropriate or have proved to be inadequate ; and ( c ) substitute care is considered to be in the best interests of the child .

According to LAW , substitute care shall be provided without delay where it is needed and is in the best interests of the child .

If a child is in imminent danger or otherwise in need of an immediate care order and substitute care , ORG may take him or her into care without submitting the decision to ORG for approval ( LAW , LAW ) .

An emergency care order shall expire within DATE of the decision unless it is taken up as a normal care order referred to in LAW during the said period . Such a care order must be made within DATE , or on special grounds within DATE of the emergency order . A decision on emergency care can be appealed in the normal way .

Care in accordance with LAW of LAW terminates when the child attains DATE or concludes marriage . Public care shall be terminated earlier where the preconditions for the termination of care exist .

According to LAW , the ORG shall discharge a child from care , when the need for care or substitute placement referred to in LAW no longer applies , unless such discharge is clearly contrary to the best interests of the child .

Taking into care differs from adoption in so far as the parents are able to keep limited custodial rights and guardianship responsibilities . Taking a child into care also maintains contact between the child and the parents as well as relationships under family law such as statutory succession , including the right to a family name and to inheritance .

On the custody of a child in care LAW stipulates as follows :

“ When ORG takes a child into care , it shall be empowered to decide on the child ’s care , upbringing , supervision , other welfare , and residence . The ORG shall , however , make every effort to co - operate with the parents or other custodians of the child . ”

Through a decision to take a child into care , ORG automatically takes over the competence to decide on the contacts between the child and its parents and other persons close to the child ( LAW of LAW ) .

ORG . According to LAW a child who is in substitute care shall be ensured the continuous and secure human relations that are important for his or her development . The child is entitled to meet his or her parents and other persons close to him or her and to keep in touch with them . ORG shall support and facilitate the child ’s access to his or her parents and to other persons close to him or her .

According to LAW of LAW , ORG or the director of a residential home may restrict the right of access of a child in substitute care to its parents or other persons close to him or her , as stipulated in detail in Decree , if ( a ) such access clearly endangers the development or safety of the child ; or if ( b ) such a restriction is necessary for the safety or security of the parents , or the children or staff in the residential home . On the above - mentioned grounds , ORG may decide that a child ’s whereabouts shall not be disclosed to its parents or custodians while the child is in care .

According to LAW of LAW and LAW ( lastensuojeluasetus , barnskyddsförordning DATE ) , a decision concerning the restriction of the right of access shall be valid for a specified time , and it shall mention the persons whose rights are restricted . In addition , the decision shall mention what kind of contacts are restricted by the decision and to what extent the restriction is in force .

A decision to restrict the right of access restricts the child ’s right to meet its parents and other persons close to the child . Such close persons to the child are the child ’s custodian or other legal representative , members of family and those persons who have in reality kept in touch with the child before and when the child has been in care .

A care plan shall be made for each case of family - orientated and individual child welfare , unless the matter under consideration requires only temporary counselling or guidance . This plan must be adjusted when necessary .

In a case of a child taken into care ( LAW of LAW ) or a child placed in residential care as assistance in open care ( LAW ) the care plan shall mention ( a ) the purpose and objectives of the placement ; ( b ) what kind of special support will be organised for the child , for the persons in charge of the child ’s care and upbringing and for the child ’s parents ; ( c ) how the child ’s right of access to its parents and other persons close to the child is going to be organised ; and ( d ) how after - care is going to be organised .

According to LAW , the care plan shall be elaborated in co - operation with those involved .

According to LAW , a ORG , with several members elected by the municipality , shall be responsible for providing social welfare in its area , and shall be charged with the responsibilities assigned to social welfare boards in other Acts .

According to LAW , the decision - making authority of a municipal ORG can be delegated to officials subordinate to such board , with the exception of decisions involving compulsory welfare for an individual .

According to Section CARDINAL of LAW , a decision made by ORG on taking a child into care or placing him in substitute care , must be submitted within DATE to ORG for approval , if a child who has attained DATE or his or her custodians oppose the measure or if the hearing required by LAW could not be arranged .

According to Section CARDINAL , decisions concerning taking into care or placement in substitute care can be appealed to ORG within DATE of notification of the decision . During that time , such an appeal may also be lodged with the local ORG which shall forward it to ORG together with its own statement within DATE . The submission and the appeal shall in this case be dealt with and decided at the same time .

According to Section CARDINAL of LAW , appeals against a decision on care orders , on placement in substitute care , on termination of care , or on a matter concerning housing , as stated in LAW , made by ORG in pursuance of this LAW , may be lodged with ORG .

According to Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW , other decisions than those stated in subsection CARDINAL , relating to family - oriented and individual child welfare rendered by ORG in pursuance of LAW , can not be appealed .

According to Section CARDINAL of LAW , a child who has attained DATE , his or her parents , his or her custodians , and the person responsible for his or her care and upbringing or who was responsible immediately prior to the case in question , may appeal in cases concerning the taking of a child into care , placement in substitute care or termination of the care .

A person challenging a decision made by an official subordinate to a municipal ORG shall have , under LAW ( hallintomenettelylaki , lag om förvaltningsförfarande CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the right to have the decision reviewed by a municipal ORG within DATE of having been informed of the decision . A decision made by ORG can be appealed to ORG .

According to LAW of LAW , a decision made by ORG is subject to appeal to a ORG within DATE of the service of the decision . Certain decisions by ORG can be appealed to ORG .

When a decision of an authority can be appealed , the authority in question shall attach to its decision the information and instructions concerning the right of appeal .

According to LAW of LAW , a decision made by a municipal ORG is enforceable regardless of appeal if ( a ) the decision requires immediate implementation ; or ( b ) for reasons due to the arrangement of social welfare , the enforcement of the decision can not be delayed ; and ( c ) when ORG has ordered the decision to be enforced at once .

When an appeal has been lodged , the appellate authority can stay the enforcement of the decision , or order that the said enforcement be suspended .

Section CARDINAL . of ORG ( hallintolainkäyttölaki , förvaltningsprocesslag ORG ) which entered into force on DATE ) contains rules on the right for an oral hearing before administrative courts .

According to ORG , a person DATE is legally incompetent ( minor ) . A child who has attained DATE is entitled to be heard in child welfare cases as stipulated in LAW ; he or she is also entitled to demand the social services and other support mentioned in LAW .

Section CARDINAL of LAW determines the parties to be heard in matters concerning taking a child into care , placing a child in substitute care and termination of care . According to this Section , the following persons have the right to be heard in accordance with LAW : ( a ) the custodian of the child , ( b ) a biological parent who is not the custodian of the child , ( c ) a person currently in charge of the child ’s care and upbringing or who was in charge immediately prior to the case in question , and ( d ) a child who has attained DATE . They will also have to be notified of a decision concerning taking a child into care and termination of care following the procedure for special notification . The authorities also have , when necessary , an obligation to inform them of possibilities of appeal .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW lays down a general obligation to hear the parties . Before any decision is made the party shall be afforded an opportunity to reply to the claims put forward by others as well as to any evidence that may affect the decision .

ORG , in the capacity of a ORG authority on regional level , has the general competence to supervise the activities of municipalities . Also , following a procedural appeal , ORG ( lääninhallitus , länsstyrelsen ) can investigate whether a local authority has acted in accordance with the law .

NORP In addition , ORG and ORG supervises and directs , in its capacity as the highest authority in social welfare and health matters , the activities of municipalities and , when necessary , also the activities of ORG in child welfare . Appeals concerning individual cases addressed to ORG and ORG are sent to ORG which decides on the matter as the first instance .

The Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of ORG ( oikeuskansleri , justitiekansler ) have the competence to supervise the legality of the measures taken by any authorities .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

The applicant was arrested by the police in PERSON on DATE . On DATE the FAC remanded him in custody on suspicion of murder and forgery . The court found that , if released , the applicant could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses . It further noted that he was wanted in connection with other crimes and had changed his place of residence several times .

DATE and DATE the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in criminal proceedings before ORG .

The applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended by ORG on DATE and DATE and on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the prosecution service filed a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with murder , among other offences .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended on CARDINAL occasions .

On DATE the applicant began serving a DATE term of imprisonment imposed on him in another set of proceedings ( before ORG ) .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG again extended the applicant ’s detention .

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against numerous decisions extending his detention .

On DATE ORG gave judgment convicting the applicant as charged . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court also extended the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed .

It appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending .

On DATE the applicant was arrested at his home in ORG by CARDINAL police officers . He submits that he was severely beaten and did not receive medical assistance when he arrived at the police station . He claims that he sustained injuries to his head and spine . The incident was witnessed by members of his family , who were traumatised as a result .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers , alleging that they had ill - treated him during his arrest .

On DATE the Wrocław Stare Miasto District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of an abuse of power by the police officers causing him injuries . The prosecutor held that there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant ’s assertion that the police officers had committed an offence .

It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that decision .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pretrial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention , and the rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Art. 14+8;No violation of Art. 13;No violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE . At present he is serving a life sentence in FAC .

The applicant was accused of several serious offences . In that context he was detained pending trial from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he started serving a DATE prison term to which he had been sentenced for robbery . Further details are set out in the decision of DATE on the admissibility of the present application .

During his detention on remand the applicant lodged several complaints with ORG , in which he complained about the conditions of his detention . He raised many issues , among which were the restrictions on his visiting rights ( visits were allowed DATE for TIME and it was only possible to speak to visitors through a partition ) , the right to buy food in prison , the lack of hot water in his cell , and a lack of contact with other prisoners . He also alleged that convicted prisoners serving a sentence had more rights than he had as a remand prisoner .

The Directorate General of Prison Administration sent replies to the applicant on CARDINAL occasions . It found all of the applicant ’s complaints to be ill - founded . It also held that the conditions in the prisons in which the applicant had been detained during the investigation and judicial proceedings had been in conformity with the relevant law .

Furthermore , the applicant has been obliged , both during his detention and after his conviction , to use CARDINAL of the money he received from his family to reimburse the debt which he owed to the ORG ( this debt resulted from court decisions and from the statutory obligation to contribute to his maintenance in prison ) , failing which he was not allowed to buy supplementary food in the prison shop .

Thus , the applicant ’s overall debt amounted to the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in DATE . In the period from DATE to DATE he had reimbursed approximately EUR CARDINAL of the debt .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG submitting that his human rights had been violated . He complained , inter alia , about the manner in which the ORG had forced him to reimburse the debt resulting from the statutory obligation to contribute to his maintenance in prison .

On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint as no breach of the law had been found in the applicant ’s case .

During the whole period of his detention during the investigation and trial the applicant could not watch television , whereas convicted prisoners had the possibility of watching television programmes collectively in the assembly room of the relevant prison wing . Through the prison broadcast system the prison administration let the detainees listen to a public and a private radio station , each of which was transmitted DATE . For almost the whole period of his detention pending trial the applicant was kept alone in his cell .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a person ’s detention during an investigation and judicial proceedings must respect the detained person ’s right to be presumed innocent . Any restrictions must be justified by the purpose of the detention and by the aim of ensuring order , the safety of others and the protection of property in places where accused persons are detained . LAW permits the restriction of only those rights of detained persons of which they can not avail themselves in view of the fact that they are detained on remand . Detention on remand must not diminish the human dignity of the accused person .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that an accused person detained during an investigation and judicial proceedings is entitled to receive visitors once DATE for a minimum of TIME . Where justified , the prison governor may permit more frequent visits or another form of contact . Subsection CARDINAL of section CARDINAL provides that visits to accused persons should take place in the presence of a prison officer and without direct contact between the accused and the visitor . Other arrangements may be authorised by the prison governor in justified cases .

Section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) states that an accused person is entitled to use his or her money to purchase groceries and other items in prison , provided that he or she has fulfilled the relevant statutory requirements . These include , inter alia , the obligation to pay at least the same amount of his or her debt to the prison administration or to other entitled people when wishing to withdraw money from his or her account in prison . When this and the other conditions are not met , the prison governor should allow the detained person , at his or her written request , to use money to purchase medicine and medical items which are not provided free of charge under the relevant law , to buy basic toiletries , and also to pay any applicable taxes and fees ( section DATE ) ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , accused persons are entitled to receive visitors DATE for TIME .

Where an accused is detained on the ground that he or she could influence witnesses or co - accused , or hamper the criminal investigation into the case , he or she can receive visitors only subject to the consent of the prosecuting authority or court dealing with the case ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Accused persons detained in prisons at the lowest security level are allowed to have direct contact with their visitors as a general rule . In other cases visits take place without direct contact unless the prison governor decides otherwise , and in the presence of a prison officer . In the situations set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the prosecuting authority or court may request that the visit take place in the presence of CARDINAL or more of its representatives ( section ORG ) ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Serving of Prison Sentences Act DATE defines the purpose of the serving of a prison term as preventing convicted persons from committing further offences and preparing them on a continuous basis for an appropriate way of life .

Section CARDINAL lists cultural and educational work as CARDINAL of the means of attaining the purpose of the imprisonment of convicted persons .

Section CARDINAL provides for the social rights of convicted persons . Subsection CARDINAL guarantees to convicted persons the necessary material and cultural conditions for ensuring their appropriate physical and mental development .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a convicted person is entitled to receive visitors who are his or her close friends and/or relatives at a time determined by the prison governor . The frequency of the visits depends on the type of security level to which a convicted person is subject : visits are allowed at least once a fortnight for convicted persons at the lowest security level ; once DATE for convicted persons at the medium security level ; and once DATE for those at the highest security level . Visits to a convicted person subject to the medium or highest levels of security take place without physical contact . A prison governor may exceptionally decide otherwise .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Serving of Prison Sentences Act DATE provides that a convicted person is entitled to receive visitors at least once a month for TIME .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that , where a convicted person has not paid a part of his or her debt to the ORG in respect of ORG maintenance contributions and to other creditors registered with the prison authorities , he or she can use his or her money only for the purchase of basic sanitary items , objects necessary to engage in correspondence , medicine ( which can not be provided free of charge ) , medical fees , and for the payment of debts and court and administrative fees .

Pursuant to section GPE ) , subject to the approval of the prison governor , convicted persons may use in their cells , at their own expense , their own radio and television receivers .

Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that convicted persons should be treated in a way which reduces the negative impact of imprisonment on their personality .

Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) lists sports and leisure activities , radio and television broadcasts , films and convicted ORG own cultural , educational or entertainment activities among the cultural and educational activities for persons who serve a prison term .

Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that convicted persons are allowed to follow radio and television broadcasts . The scope is to be determined by prison rules .

The frequency and duration of visits to convicted persons by their close friends and/or relatives is governed by LAW , DATE and DATE . Visits are allowed at least once a fortnight for convicted persons at the lowest security level ; once a DATE for convicted persons at the medium security level ; and once DATE for those at the highest security level . As a rule , visits take place without direct supervision by a prison officer in prisons with the lowest security level . In other cases visits are supervised by a prison officer and no direct contact between the convicted person and the visitor is allowed . In CARDINAL types of prison the duration of a visit is to be a minimum of TIME .

The relevant part of LAW concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty , by which GPE has been bound since DATE , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ( a ) Accused persons shall , save in exceptional circumstances , be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons ; ... ”

General Comment No . CARDINAL concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty ( LAW ) was adopted by ORG on DATE . In its relevant part it reads :

“ CARDINAL . Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) , provides for the segregation , save in exceptional circumstances , of accused persons from convicted ones . Such segregation is required in order to emphasise their status as unconvicted persons who at the same time enjoy the right to be presumed innocent as stated in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL . ... ”

ORG are recommendations of ORG to member ORG as to the minimum standards to be applied in prisons . States are encouraged to be guided by the Rules in their legislation and policies and to ensure wide dissemination of the Rules to their judicial authorities and to prison staff and inmates .

The DATE ORG ( Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) were adopted by ORG CARDINAL DATE . In Part V they contained a number of basic principles concerning untried prisoners , including the following :

“ CARDINAL . Without prejudice to legal rules for the protection of individual liberty or prescribing the procedure to be observed in respect of untried prisoners , these prisoners , who are presumed to be innocent until they are found guilty , shall be ... treated without restrictions other than those necessary for the penal procedure and the security of the institution .

CARDINAL . Untried prisoners shall be allowed to inform their families of their detention immediately and given all reasonable facilities for communication with family and friends and persons with whom it is in their legitimate interest to enter into contact .

CARDINAL . They shall also be allowed to receive visits from them ... subject only to such restrictions and supervision as are necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and of the security and good order of the institution . ... ”

On DATE ORG adopted a new version of ORG ( Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . It noted that the DATE Rules “ need[ed ] to be substantively revised and updated in order to reflect the developments which ha[d ] occurred in penal policy , sentencing practice and the overall management of prisons in LOC ” .

The CARDINAL Rules contain the following principles concerning untried prisoners , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . CARDINAL . NORP The regime for untried prisoners may not be influenced by the possibility that they may be convicted of a criminal offence in the future .

CARDINAL . In dealing with untried prisoners prison authorities shall be guided by the rules that apply to all prisoners and allow untried prisoners to participate in various activities for which these rules provide .

Unless there is a specific prohibition for a specified period by a judicial authority in an individual case , untried prisoners :

a. shall receive visits and be allowed to communicate with family and other persons in the same way as convicted prisoners ;

b. may receive additional visits and have additional access to other forms of communication ; ... ”

On DATE ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) published its report on the visit to GPE which had taken place from DATE . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the report on the DATE visit ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) , the ORG stressed the importance for prisoners to be able to maintain good contact with the outside world . In view of the situation found in DATE , ORG recommended that the visit entitlement of remand prisoners in FAC be substantially increased and invited the NORP authorities to explore the possibility of offering more open visiting arrangements for such prisoners . ...

In their responses , the NORP authorities expressed some misgivings about the approach proposed by the ORG , principally based on the objective of preserving the interests of justice ( preventing collusion , etc . ) .

It is therefore not surprising that the delegation which carried out the DATE visit observed little or no change in this area . In particular , remand ORG visit entitlement remained limited to TIME every month ... , although they could receive from time to time an additional visit at the director ’s discretion . Further , visits for such prisoners continued to take place in booths , with prisoner and visitor(s ) separated by a screen . ...

The ORG accepts that in certain cases it will be justified , for security - related reasons or to protect the legitimate interests of an investigation , to have visits take place in booths and/or monitored . However , the ORG wishes once again to invite the NORP authorities to move towards more open visiting arrangements for remand prisoners in general .

Arguments based on the need to protect the interests of justice are totally unconvincing as a justification for the present inadequate visit entitlement for remand prisoners . The ORG therefore reiterates its recommendation that the visit entitlement for remand prisoners be substantially increased ( for example , to TIME every week ) .

On DATE the ORG published its report on the visit to GPE which had taken place from DATE . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A fundamental problem as regards remand prisoners in GPE is the total lack of out - of - cell activities offered to such inmates .

At the time of the visit , remand prisoners were being held for TIME a day in their cells in a state of enforced idleness ; their only source of distraction was reading books from the prison library and listening to the radio and , in a limited number of cases , watching television . No work was offered to such prisoners , and possibilities for sports activities were few and far between , if available at all . ... The deleterious effects of such a restricted regime were exacerbated by the lengthy periods of time for which persons could be held in remand prisons . ...

The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to take steps , as a matter of priority , to devise and implement a comprehensive regime of out - of - cell activities ( including group association activities ) for remand prisoners . The aim should be to ensure that all prisoners are allowed to spend a reasonable part of DATE outside their cells , engaged in purposeful activities of a varied nature ( group association activities ; work , preferably with vocational value ; education ; sport ) . The legislative framework governing remand imprisonment should be revised accordingly . ...

The situation as regards the visiting entitlements for remand prisoners had not changed in DATE . It remained the case that adults were entitled to a mere CARDINAL visit per month ... The conditions under which visits took place continued to be closed ( in booths with a screen separating inmates from their visitors ) . This was exactly the situation which prevailed during the first visit of the ORG to GPE in DATE .

The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to revise the relevant legal provisions in order to increase substantially the visit entitlement for remand prisoners . The objective should be to offer the equivalent of a visit DATE , of CARDINAL minutes ] . Further , the ORG invites the NORP authorities to introduce more open arrangements for visits to remand prisoners . ”

The DATE ’s response to the latter report , published on DATE , contains the following information :

“ Under the methodological guidance issued by the General Director of the ORG ( No . PERSON ) in conformity with the current legislation on the enforcement of remand imprisonment , remand prisoners are allowed to have their own TV sets subject to certain conditions . The methodological guidance issued by the General Director of the ORG ( No . PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL - DATE ) provides for certain leisure - time activities and allows the performance of certain sports and special - interest activities , in particular to juvenile and female remand prisoners . Remand prisons take permanent efforts to create spatial and material conditions for special - interest activities of remand prisoners , and for sports activities both inside and in outdoor LOC of prison establishments .

The issue of creating [ an ] adequate programme of activities for remand prisoners is addressed also in the new draft law on remand imprisonment , which is currently considered by ORG in connection with the re - codification of LAW and of LAW . The new draft law on remand imprisonment aims at introducing a lighter remand regime and proposes that remand prisoners be differentiated by categories to enable their participation in special - interest activities that can mitigate or reduce the negative impact of incarceration on remand prisoners . The implementation of adequate activity programmes proposed for all remand prisoners is conditional on the creation of adequate spatial , material and staffing conditions . After the new law has entered into effect , the ORG will gradually create material conditions for [ the ] above - mentioned programmes and start [ ... ] their practical implementation .

Under the new draft legislation on remand imprisonment , the visit entitlement is to be extended from one visit of TIME a month to a visit of TIME once in DATE . In justified cases , the prison governor will have the right to grant more frequent visits . ... ”