Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 13+3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1

András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi

On DATE the applicant was arrested by officers from the anti - terrorist branch of ORG on suspicion of membership of the ORG ( ORG ) , an illegal organisation ; he was arrested in a restaurant along with a woman , PERSON According to the arrest report signed by CARDINAL police officers , the applicant and PERSON attempted to escape , following which the officers were obliged to use force in order to effect their arrest . Thereupon , the applicant and PERSON were found to possess false identity cards .

On DATE the applicant was medically examined by a doctor who noted that he was suffering from pain and restricted movement in his shoulders .

The applicant was subsequently placed in ORG . He was allegedly ill - treated there . In particular , he claimed to have been subjected to hanging , to have had his testicles squeezed and to have been forced to lie in ice covered by a wet blanket .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was again examined by a doctor , who noted the following :

“ There is a bruise of QUANTITY . on the right ... ”

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined by a doctor from the GPE branch of ORG , who observed the following on the applicant 's body :

“ An ecchymosis of yellow - green colour of QUANTITY under the left eye ; a haematoma of QUANTITY on the exterior of the right eyebrow ; a scabbed wound of QUANTITY on the vertex ; scabbed grazes on the exterior of the left wrist ; an ecchymosis of yellow colour of QUANTITY and a hyperaemia of QUANTITY in the right armpit ; sensitivity in the right testicle ... ”

On DATE the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor and a single judge at ORG . On both occasions the applicant maintained that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody . He submitted that he had been subjected to hanging , that his testicles had been squeezed and that he had been forced to lie in ice covered by a wet blanket .

On DATE the judge at ORG ordered the applicant 's pre - trial detention . The applicant was subsequently placed in PERSON prison .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against the police officers who had allegedly inflicted the ill - treatment on him . He stated that he had been beaten , hung by the arms , immersed in cold water and forced to lie in ice . Furthermore , his testicles had been squeezed . Stating that he would recognise the police officers who had been responsible for his ill - treatment , the applicant requested that an investigation be initiated into his allegations .

NORP On DATE the ORG issued a decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the applicant 's allegations . He noted in the decision that the applicant had refused to go to the public prosecutor 's office from prison to make statements and that the police officers had denied the veracity of the allegations against them .

On an unspecified date the decision of DATE was quashed .

On DATE the ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG against QUANTITY police officers from the anti - terrorist branch of ORG , charging them with ill - treatment under LAW .

On DATE the ORG issued a decision based on lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case to ORG because the charges of torture should have been brought under LAW of the former LAW .

On DATE the applicant joined the case against the police officers as a civil party .

DATE and DATE , ORG postponed the hearings as some of the accused police officers could not be summoned .

On various dates the accused police officers and the applicant made statements before different courts at the request of ORG . These statements were then sent to that court .

On DATE ORG held that the criminal proceedings against the police officers should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time - barred ( zamanaşımı ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence proscribed by LAW .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits .

Pursuant to Law no . CARDINAL of DATE abolishing ORG , published in ORG on DATE , the case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .

According to the information in the case file , the applicant was released from pre - trial detention on DATE . However , the case against the applicant is still pending before the Thirteenth Chamber of ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the relevant time may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . PERSON and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ORG ) , and GPE v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE )


The applicant , Mr PERSON NORP , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the town of LOC in LOC . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant sued his former employer for reinstatement , wage arrears and compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

DATE and DATE the ORG fixed CARDINAL hearings of which CARDINAL were adjourned at the applicant ’s request .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action .

On DATE ORG partly upheld the judgment of DATE , quashed the remainder of the judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a new examination .

Of CARDINAL hearings scheduled DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because the composition of the court was changed at the applicant ’s request or because his representative did not attend . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because the presiding judge was ill .

On DATE the applicant successfully challenged the presiding judge .

Of CARDINAL hearings fixed DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because the applicant did not attend and CARDINAL were adjourned because he challenged the court members or asked to stay the proceedings on various grounds .

On DATE the applicant asked the town court to change the composition of the bench . The ORG granted his request and transferred the case to another court .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and transferred the case back to ORG for examination .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned because the defendant did not attend .

At the hearing of DATE the applicant asked to change the composition of the bench . The request was granted .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and returned the case back to ORG for examination by the same bench .

Of CARDINAL hearings DATE and DATE , CARDINAL was adjourned due to the parties’ absence , CARDINAL were adjourned because the applicant did not attend , CARDINAL were adjourned because the applicant successfully challenged the bench , and CARDINAL hearing was postponed because the applicant intended to retain a new representative .

On DATE the ORG disallowed the action because the applicant had repeatedly defaulted and had not informed the court about the reasons for his absence .

On DATE ORG , on an appeal by the applicant , quashed the decision of DATE and ordered that the case should be examined by ORG .

On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the bench and the registrar . On DATE the town court ordered the applicant ’s medical examination .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL August CARDINAL . His appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the case - file was sent to medical experts .

On DATE the experts returned the case - file to the court because medical documents had not been enclosed .

The court fixed a hearing for DATE . This hearing was adjourned because the applicant wished to retain a lawyer .

The hearing of DATE was postponed at the applicant ’s request based on unclear reasons .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the part concerning the applicant ’s reinstatement , payment of outstanding salary and compensation for non - pecuniary damage , and remitted these claims for a new examination by a different bench .

Of CARDINAL hearings DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were postponed because the applicant did not attend , CARDINAL were adjourned at the defendant ’s request and CARDINAL at the applicant ’s request .

On DATE ORG disallowed the applicant ’s action because he had persistently defaulted and appeared to have lost interest in the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE because the applicant had informed the court about the reasons for his absence and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Będziemyśl .

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. GPE , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .

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

The applicant is a widow and has CARDINAL child . Prior to her application for an EWK pension ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) she had been employed since DATE by the same employer .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an earlyretirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the socalled “ EWK ” pension .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her daughter ’s health , a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from a congenital malformation of both arms ( bilateral radioulnar synostosis , zrost promieniowo - lokciowy ) and was in need of the parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension in the net amount of QUANTITY ( ORG ) per month . In addition to the ORG pension the applicant received a family allowance and nursing benefit which , together with the pension , amounted to ORG CARDINAL net per month .

ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision . Shortly afterwards the applicant informed the ORG of her resignation with effect from DATE . The payment of the pension started on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was reemployed by her previous employer , a municipal transport company ( PKS NORP PERSON ) , and remained employed continuously until DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG requested ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to specify whether the applicant ’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . On an unspecified date the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child in question could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE the ORG simultaneously issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of the first decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect ( DATE ) . By virtue of the second decision , ORG reopened the proceedings , revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early - retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the ORG ’s Ordinance of CARDINAL DATE on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care ( ORG PERSON . DATE w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) .

NORP The applicant appealed against these decisions . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant ’s original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal . ORG concluded on the basis of the evidence , including expert medical evidence , that the applicant ’s child suffered from a mild malformation of her arms but did not require her mother ’s permanent care since her state of health did not significantly impair her body functions . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care .

The applicant further appealed against the first - instance judgment . In particular , she claimed that she had been informed by the ORG that she could continue working while in receipt of the LAW .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the appeal . The court considered that only a total impairment of the child ’s arms could justify the need for her parent ’s constant care . In the present case the malfunction did not significantly impair her body functions . The child had been going to school by herself and required only minor everyday help . Moreover , the fact that the applicant has been employed DATE while receiving the EWK pension was an important aspect of the case .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to the early - retirement pension .

The applicant submitted , in general , that after the revocation of the ORG pension her financial situation had been difficult .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been employed continuously while receiving the EWK pension and at the time the pension was revoked . From DATE and DATE she received an unemployment allowance . In addition , in DATE the applicant and her daughter were granted a family pension following the death of the applicant ’s husband . The pension amounted to ORG CARDINAL per person per month . The applicant ’s daughter started working in DATE and remains employed . The applicant also owns a small farm .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgments in the case of GPE GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § ORG , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § ORG , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for DATE in view of the strong suspicion that he had committed CARDINAL counts of burglary . It considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence , given the fact that he had only partly confessed . Further , the court referred to the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings by going into hiding . In that regard , the court relied on evidence from CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - suspects , who had stated that , shortly before having been arrested , the applicant had tried to leave for GPE in order to evade serving a sentence of imprisonment which had been previously imposed on him . Finally , the court had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty .

Subsequently , the applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of burglary . He confessed to CARDINAL counts .

On DATE ORG terminated the investigation . On DATE he filed a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant had been indicted on CARDINAL charges of burglary and CARDINAL charge of assault . There were CARDINAL other defendants in the case . The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .

From DATE to DATE the trial court listed CARDINAL hearings ( for DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL January , DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . All those hearings were cancelled for various reasons , usually because the police had failed to bring the accused from prison .

The trial began on DATE . The subsequent hearings were held on DATE , DATE and DATE . At the hearing held on the latter date ORG fined CARDINAL witnesses who had failed to appear .

ORG several times prolonged the applicant ’s detention , holding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and that , given his attempt to leave GPE and the resultant risk that he might go into hiding or tamper with evidence , as well as the fact that he had only partly confessed , keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . The court also relied on the serious nature of the charges against the applicant and the severity of the anticipated penalty . Lastly , the court had regard to the fact that the applicant had a previous conviction .

NORP The relevant decisions were given on DATE ( prolonging his detention until DATE ) , on DATE ( ordering his continued detention until DATE ) , on DATE ( extending his detention until CARDINAL DATE ) , on DATE ( prolonging that period until DATE ) , on DATE ( ordering his continued detention until DATE ) , on DATE ( extending his detention until DATE ) , on DATE ( prolonging his detention until CARDINAL DATE ) and on DATE ( ordering his continued detention until DATE ) .

In its decision of DATE dismissing the applicant ’s appeal against the prolongation of his detention , ORG ( PERSON ) instructed ORG to take determined measures with a view to speedily terminating the trial .

On DATE ORG made an application to ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) pursuant to LAW ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) , asking for the applicant ’s detention to be prolonged beyond the statutory time - limit of DATE . The court stressed that , due to the complex nature of the case , it had so far been impossible for it to open the trial and that the applicant should be kept in custody since the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It relied on the same grounds as previously invoked by ORG . It noted that the applicant had attempted to flee the country . Furthermore , ORG considered that the trial court had not been responsible for the delays incurred in the proceedings to date . In this respect , it referred , inter alia , to the fact that CARDINAL hearings had been cancelled since the police had failed to bring the accused from prison . On the other hand , it considered that prolongation of the applicant ’s detention until DATE would give the ORG sufficient time to conclude the proceedings , provided that it accelerated its examination of the case .

On DATE ORG made yet another application under LAW of LAW , asking ORG to prolong the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It stressed that it had still been impossible for it to begin the trial and that the grounds previously given for keeping the applicant in custody were still valid .

On DATE ORG partly granted the application and ordered that the applicant be held in custody until DATE . It drew ORG attention to the fact that it had not stated any concrete reasons to justify the fact that the proceedings had not been terminated within the time - limit of DATE specified in LAW of LAW . In ORG view , the laconic statement of ORG that the trial had not been concluded for reasons which could not be attributed to it , was not sufficient . ORG also criticised the fact that DATE and DATE ORG had listed only CARDINAL hearings . A hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled because not all of the victims had been properly summoned , while the hearing listed for DATE was cancelled due to the holiday of CARDINAL of the counsel . ORG further noted that on DATE a new judge had been assigned to the case . However , it noted that ORG had not taken any significant measures aimed at concluding the proceedings , as had been indicated in the earlier decisions of ORG and ORG . It lastly stressed that the case was not particularly complex and suggested that ORG should properly organise the trial and terminate it by DATE .

The applicant was released on DATE . All the applicant ’s earlier applications for release and appeals against decisions prolonging his detention had been to no avail .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , defines detention on remand as CARDINAL of the so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) . The other measures are bail ( poręczenie majątkowe ) , police supervision ( dozór policji ) , guarantee by a responsible person ( poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania ) , guarantee by a social entity ( poręczenie społeczne ) , temporary ban on engaging in a given activity ( zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności ) and prohibition on leaving the country ( zakaz opuszczania kraju ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL sets out the general grounds for imposition of the preventive measures . That provision reads :

“ CARDINAL . Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and , exceptionally , also in order to prevent an accused ’s committing another , serious offence ; they may be imposed only if the evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence . ”

Article CARDINAL lists grounds for detention on remand . It provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or when he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ;

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce [ witnesses or co - defendants ] to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means ;

NORP If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an offence for the commission of which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the need to continue detention to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based on the likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed . ”

The Code sets out the conditions governing the continuation of a specific preventive measure . Article CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand shall not be imposed if another preventive measure is sufficient . ”

Article CARDINAL , in its relevant part , reads :

“ CARDINAL . If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand shall be lifted , in particular if depriving an accused of his liberty would :

( CARDINAL ) seriously jeopardise his life or health ; or

( CARDINAL ) entail excessively harsh consequences for the accused or his family . ”

The DATE Code not only sets out maximum statutory time - limits for detention on remand but also , in LAW , lays down that the relevant court – within those time - limits – must in each detention decision determine the exact time for which detention shall continue .

Article CARDINAL sets out time - limits for detention . In the version applicable up to DATE it provided :

“ CARDINAL . Imposing detention in the course of an investigation , the court shall determine its term for a period not exceeding DATE .

The whole period of detention on remand until DATE first conviction at first instance may not exceed DATE .

Only ORG may , on application made by the court before which the case is pending or , at the investigation stage , on application made by ORG , prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a stay of the proceedings , for the purpose of a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused or a prolonged preparation of an expert report , when evidence needs to be obtained in a particularly complex case or from abroad or when the accused has deliberately prolonged the proceedings , as well as on account of other significant obstacles that could not be overcome . ”

On DATE paragraph CARDINAL was amended and since then the competence to prolong detention beyond the time - limits set out in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL has been vested in the court of appeal within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed . In addition , new paragraph CARDINAL was added . It provides :

“ A decision of ORG taken pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL may be appealed against to ORG sitting in a panel of CARDINAL judges . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general};No violation of Article 13+P1-2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general};Right to education);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

ORG The applicants , Mr. PERSON and Mrs. PERSON , who are husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are NORP citizens and live in GPE in GPE . The case concerns CARDINAL children of the marriage , namely PERSON , born in DATE , GPE , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE ( hereinafter together referred to as " the children " ) . The applicants and the children belong to ORG ; the ORG membership is purely nominal , as they describe themselves as atheists .

ORG In their youth , both Mr. and Mrs. PERSON had spent some time at PERSON , a home for the mentally retarded . However , an examination by a psychologist in DATE revealed that they then had an average level of intelligence . Other children of theirs had been in social care and PERSON has been subject to various forms of special education since DATE , when he was registered with ORG for the Handicapped by reason of his being mentally retarded .

Prior to the events giving rise to the present case , a number of different social authorities had been individually involved with the family ; they co - ordinated their activities from DATE onwards . Mr. PERSON - who is in receipt of a disability pension - and Mrs. PERSON were both given certain additional social assistance DATE . They stated that they lived apart on CARDINAL occasions , the first time for DATE and the second for DATE . From DATE to DATE , they were provided with the support of a home - therapist , and a psychiatric team was in touch with the family as from DATE . It appears that the applicants had difficulty in co - operating with the social authorities .

ORG The family ’s situation was discussed by representatives of the various social authorities concerned at case conferences held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The applicants were present on the last occasion , when different preventive measures for the children were agreed upon . According to the Government , nothing came of this agreement because the applicants abandoned it .

On DATE , ORG No . CARDINAL in GPE ( " the ORG " ) decided , pursuant to sections CARDINAL(a ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( barnavårdslagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL - " LAW " ; see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , that the children should be placed under supervision in view of their GPE inability to satisfy their need for care and supervision .

ORG Further case conferences , at which the applicants were present , were held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , at which time the parents were living apart , the Chairman of the ORG decided , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the children should be provisionally taken into care so that their situation could be investigated . This decision , which had been prompted by the fact that PERSON and PERSON had been found cycling around and unable to make their way home , was confirmed on DATE by ORG after a meeting on DATE at which the applicants were present and made oral submissions .

ORG On DATE , the ORG decided , at a meeting at which the applicants were present and had an opportunity to submit their views , that the children should be taken into care , pursuant to sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . This decision was based , inter alia , on a report compiled by the social administration and dated DATE , which was produced at the meeting . The report reviewed the family history and background ; recorded the applicants’ opposition to the children ’s being taken into care ; concluded that the latter ’s development was in danger since they were living in an environment which was unsatisfactory due to their GPE inability to satisfy their need for care , stimulation and supervision ; noted that preventive measures had been taken , but with no result ; and recommended the taking into care . Appended to the report were statements from PERSON ’s former teacher , from ORG No . CARDINAL ( concerning GPE and PERSON ) and from the home where the children had been placed for investigation , together with a medical report dated CARDINAL DATE and issued by ORG at a hospital ( " Östra sjukhuset " ) in GPE . The medical report was signed by chief doctor PERSON , a consultant at the above - mentioned home , and by PERSON , a psychologist , both of whom were members of the team that was in touch with the family . It read as follows ( translation from the NORP ) :

" The above - mentioned children have been assessed at the children ’s psychiatric clinic at Östra sjukhuset on DATE . Both parents have been summoned to separate doctor ’s discussions but have not appeared . The family has been known at the children ’s psychiatric clinic since DATE , when the social worker requested observation and an assessment of the development of PERSON following his admittance to that clinic for pneumonia and an investigation for urinary infection . After referral from the doctor responsible , the assessment of NORP development was made on DATE by a psychologist , PERSON . This psychologist and welfare officer ( kurator ) PERSON thereafter participated in conferences at social welfare office no . CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL DATE with all those involved in the case , concerning the supportive measures the family had received previously and for the planning of further measures . Social welfare office conferences , together with the parents , also took place on DATE , at which an application for a day - centre placement for PERSON and PERSON was decided upon , and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , at which DATE home or camp was planned for GPE and PERSON . During a home visit on DATE , ORG was also the subject of an assessment of her development by the psychologist PERSON . PERSON was also the subject of a new assessment of his development on DATE . During NORP stay at the hospital , welfare officer PERSON had contact with the parents . I have taken note of the investigation report of DATE , with proposals concerning supervision , and the report of CARDINAL DATE , with proposals concerning a care order . I have also taken note of the children ’s medical files . On DATE , PERSON , welfare officer at the school for retarded children , provided certain information by telephone concerning PERSON .

It appears from the medical file that at DATE PERSON was admitted to the GPE children ’s hospital for assessment of his development and already at that stage he was found to be considerably retarded . At DATE he was retarded by DATE . During a new test at DATE he was found to be at the developmental level of DATE child . The psychologist PERSON considered him at that time to be passive , afraid and cautious . He was withdrawn and was most significantly retarded as regards his linguistic development . He was considered to be in great need of stimulation and the psychologist questioned whether there were sufficient opportunities for this in his home environment . He could not feed himself , could not run properly and he was not accustomed to playing with other children . According to the file , the parents were ‘ not interested in taking him to a special play - centre’ . On DATE , it was noted that he never had cooked food , could not construct sentences , did not play outside , cried easily , could feed himself but did it rarely , and seemed pale and lethargic . PERSON now attends DATE in a school for the retarded . It appears that he is one of the weakest pupils . At the beginning of his time at this school , the home conditions appeared to be acceptable since the family had a home - therapist . Subsequently , however , there were alarming reports that PERSON ran around outside and was often taken care of by the police . He could not control his urine and bowels , was teased by his friends because he smelled badly , and he was even undressed by them , according to the school welfare officer PERSON . Food problems have also occurred , according to the school nurse . PERSON mostly ate only sandwiches . The boy is short - sighted and needs to wear glasses , but he does not do so . Since the parents have also had difficulties in supervising and caring for PERSON , different ways of placing him have been discussed . A placement in an educational home appeared to be a good solution , but the parents withdrew at the last moment . Placement in a foster home has also been proposed , but the father reacted with depressive symptoms and kept the boy at home and away from school .

During a medical assessment on DATE PERSON gave the impression of being very retarded in his development but , in addition , he was cut off in his personal contacts , did not hear questions , did not treat play material in an adequate manner and seemed to have a limited concentration and attention span . His behaviour was clumsy . He could not write his own name and , when drawing with a pencil , he folded the paper at an angle of CARDINALo . He did not wear his glasses .

During a development assessment in her home on DATE , carried out by PERSON , PERSON attained a level comparable to that expected of her age . During a visit to the children ’s welfare clinic , however , ORG was considered passive , looked afraid and had an undeveloped use of language . She has been going to a clinic since DATE for stomach problems , but this has not led to any measure being taken . During an assessment on DATE she was shy when there were several persons in the same room , did not say anything and behaved as a mother towards PERSON , giving him toys and embracing him now and then . The same behaviour has been noted at the children ’s home .

Thomas’ development has been assessed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE by PERSON . During the first assessment he was somewhat below the level of development which was expected and was also somewhat passive and withdrawn in his contacts . During the second assessment he was seriously quiet , cautious and his face was without expression . His development was DATE behind . His language ( at DATE ) corresponded to a degree of development of DATE child . He became clearly stimulated by play and test material and seemed to have development potential . He gave a clear impression that he had not received sufficient stimulation at home . In the medical file it has been noted in DATE that the mother ’s way of feeding PERSON was clearly abnormal . She held the feeding bottle at a distance and , even after having been asked to pick him up , there was no natural close contact . At the children ’s home it has been observed that the father still treats PERSON as a baby .

In summary , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON are CARDINAL children whose parents have been registered as being retarded . The father has retired early . In addition , the GPE inter - relations are bad . They have separated for DATE and are now separated again . The family has moved CARDINAL times in DATE . PERSON and PERSON show clear signs of backwardness , probably of different origins . Furthermore , there is a lack of care for the children on the part of the parents , and the children ’s behaviour is disturbed . PERSON has had enuresis and encopresis , feeding difficulties , social difficulties with other children and has shown vagrancy tendencies . His special need of clean clothes , glasses ( he is myopic ) , and extra care and stimulation because of his backwardness , has not been met by his parents . The linguistic development of all the children is retarded . Such backwardness is the most frequent sign of under - stimulation . PERSON , who is of average intelligence , is inclined to take too great a responsibility for her brother PERSON . PERSON has not had any opportunity of adequate training either physically or psychologically .

Since measures taken up to now in the form of a home - therapist , day - care nursery - home placement , supervision , etc . have not improved the situation , we recommend that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON be taken into care and be given foster homes . "

The applicants alleged that , before this medical report was prepared , Dr. PERSON had never met them and had never visited their home . They also complained of the fact that she did not herself examine the children until DATE , after they had been placed in care for investigation on CARDINAL DATE ; at that time they were in a state of shock as a result of violent police action on their removal from their home and of their completely new environment . It appears , however , that the psychologist PERSON assessed PERSON on DATE and had visited the GPE home on DATE , when she assessed the development of GPE .

ORG Since the applicants did not consent to the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , the matter was submitted , pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to ORG ( länsrätten ) at GPE . It held a hearing on DATE , at which Mrs. PERSON was represented by a lawyer under LAW ( rättshjälpslagen ) and the children by official counsel ( offentligt biträde ) ; Dr. PERSON was heard as an expert .

By judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed the ORG ’s decision . It stated ( translation from the NORP ) :

" It appears from the investigation of the case that the children , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who all place specially high demands on those who care for them , have for DATE been living in an unsatisfactory home environment as a result of the GPE inability to satisfy the children ’s need of care , stimulation and supervision .

PERSON and PERSON disclose a clear retardation in their development and all CARDINAL children are backward in language development .

According to Dr. PERSON , who issued a medical report on CARDINAL DATE and was heard as an expert in the oral proceedings , there is a great risk that GPE will develop negatively if she stays in the GPE home . It is therefore as important to place her in a foster home as it is for PERSON and PERSON . Dr. PERSON has accordingly recommended taking the CARDINAL children into care .

Preventive measures with a home - therapist have been tried for DATE and supervision has been arranged without any resulting improvement .

It must therefore be considered as proved that the health and development of the children are jeopardised as a result of the GPE present inability to give them satisfactory care and education .

The decision submitted is therefore compatible with the provisions in section CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL of LAW . "

ORG Mrs. PERSON appealed to ORG in GPE ( kammarrätten ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; her husband concurred in the appeal . The ORG and official counsel for the children moved that the appeal be rejected . ORG held a hearing and then , on DATE , confirmed the judgment of ORG . However , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL laymen sitting in ORG , whilst agreeing with the taking of GPE into care , dissented as regards PERSON and PERSON .

ORG Mrs. PERSON sought to appeal to ORG ( regeringsrätten ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but on DATE it refused her leave to appeal .

ORG On DATE , following the decision of the Chairman of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the children were placed in a children ’s home in GPE for an investigation of their situation . They remained there until their subsequent placement in separate homes , as described below .

ORG Around DATE , the applicants removed PERSON from the children ’s home and hid him for DATE . He was then placed in an educational home in GPE run by ORG , but his parents again took him away and hid him for DATE .

As from DATE , PERSON was placed , with the assistance of the police , with a foster family of the name of PERSON - where he had previously spent DATE - at ORG , QUANTITY from the applicants’ home .

By decision of DATE , prompted by conflicts between the natural and the foster parents , the ORG moved PERSON to a children ’s home , ORG , at ORG , which was run by ORG and situated QUANTITY to the north of GPE .

Helena and PERSON were placed in separate foster homes - GPE with the PERSON family at GPE , in the vicinity of the town of GPE , on DATE and PERSON with the PERSON family at PERSON , south of PERSON , on DATE . These localities , which lie to the north - east of GPE , are QUANTITY from each other . The distances by road from GPE and GPE to GPE are CARDINAL and QUANTITY , respectively ( see GPE , PERSON , GPE , DATE ) .

ORG The Government stated that the original intention had been to place GPE and PERSON with separate families in the same village , but that this had proved impossible at TIME . They added that the PERSON and GPE families were in continuous contact , gave each other much support and met , together with GPE and PERSON , DATE .

ORG Thomas’ foster parents and their own children are members of ORG and attended church with him - regularly , according to the applicants , or CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a year , according to the foster parents .

ORG Since the children were taken into care , their GPE access to them has been the subject of various decisions , including the following .

PERSON spent DATE with his parents in DATE . However , on DATE the ORG decided , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to limit their access to him to CARDINAL visit DATE . They appealed to ORG , but on CARDINAL DATE it confirmed the restrictions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG After DATE , Mr. and Mrs. PERSON were allowed to see PERSON DATE , mostly at their home . He spent DATE with them in DATE .

ORG On DATE , the ORG decided to ban access by the applicants to GPE and PERSON at their foster homes , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and to prohibit disclosure of their whereabouts . However , the applicants were allowed to meet the children elsewhere , DATE . The decision was designed to protect the children ’s chances of settling down and was prompted by the fact that PERSON had previously been removed from his home and hidden by his parents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The foregoing restriction was lifted in DATE , but in DATE the ORG decided , having regard to the attitude of confrontation adopted by the applicants towards the foster parents , to confine the former ’s contacts with ORG and PERSON to CARDINAL visit at the foster homes DATE . This new restriction was confirmed by ORG , on appeal , on DATE and again by the ORG in decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE , ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the last - mentioned decision ; they withdrew their appeal on this point in subsequent proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the restriction therefore continued in force for the remainder of the period during which these children were in public care .

ORG According to Mr. and Mrs. PERSON , GPE and PERSON were permitted to visit the family home only once - in DATE - whilst they were in care , for TIME and under the strict supervision of the foster mothers and CARDINAL or CARDINAL social workers . The applicants added that they were allowed to visit these children only a couple of times a year , under the supervision of social workers , teachers or foster parents ; it appears that as time went by they tended to avoid such visits , which they considered humiliating , notably on account of the visiting conditions .

The material before the ORG reveals that Mr. and/or Mrs. PERSON saw GPE and PERSON in DATE at a neutral place in GPE ; in DATE at their foster homes ; in DATE at PERSON ’s foster home ; and just before DATE at GPE ’s foster home . The Commission ’s report contains a more general statement to the effect that the applicants met the CARDINAL younger children " CARDINAL times a year during DATE " . The applicants do not appear to have paid any visits to them DATE and DATE .

ORG Before the Commission , the Government referred to problems that had arisen as regards co - operation between the applicants on the one hand and the children ’s foster parents and the social authorities on the other ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ’s report ) . The ORG submissions to the Commission on this point are summarised as follows :

" That the applicants would co - operate with the social workers is completely unthinkable . The action of these social workers is completely in conflict with the applicants’ own understanding of how children and adults and family members and others ought to show respect and consideration . ... It must be added that if the applicants were to co - operate with the foster parents and the social workers they would risk passing on to their children the totally wrong impression that the separation of children and parents and the placement of the children in foster homes had occurred with the consent of the applicants . This would be completely disastrous to the self - respect of the applicants’ children if they had the wrong impression that their natural parents did not wish them to be at home with them . " ( ibid . , paragraph CARDINAL in fine )

ORG Following a request by the applicants for termination of the care of the children , a meeting was held on DATE at the ORG ’s office , at which the applicants , their lawyer and official counsel for the children were present .

On DATE , the ORG rejected the request . It based its decision on reports compiled by the social administration and dated CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which concluded that the parents were then incapable of giving the children the necessary support and encouragement . Annexed to the reports were statements from the psychologist PERSON , social workers and a school teacher , indicating that the children had made satisfactory progress since being taken into care .

ORG The applicants thereupon appealed to ORG . It held a hearing on DATE , at which the applicants were present and assisted by a lawyer ; the ORG was represented by a lawyer and CARDINAL social workers and the children by official counsel . Dr. PERSON and a social expert from ORG ( länsstyrelsen ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) gave evidence - the former at the request of the applicants’ lawyer - and various written opinions from a psychologist , a welfare officer , a school teacher of PERSON and his school doctor were read out . The President of the ORG also summarised the documents on which the ORG ’s decision had been based .

The applicants submitted that the medical report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) contained clearly false information , by affirming that they were mentally retarded , and did not indicate any concrete facts showing that the children would have been in danger if they had continued to live with their parents . The ORG , for its part , asserted that its refusal to terminate care had been based not on the applicants’ being mentally retarded but on their inability to satisfy the children ’s need for care , stimulation and supervision .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , in addition to confirming the restrictions on parental access to PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , held as follows ( translation from the NORP ) :

" The facts of the case show that the children suffered to a greater or lesser extent from different types of disturbance when they were taken into care . PERSON was disturbed in his development at a level comparable to special lower class . Following the placement in a foster home , his social abilities have improved and his language development has accelerated . His incontinence has to a large extent disappeared . In the special lower school PERSON has developed favourably having regard to his abilities . As regards PERSON and PERSON , they have developed favourably in the foster homes . The assessment of these CARDINAL children ’s psychological development undertaken in DATE shows that the previous delays and disturbances have now been caught up or have disappeared , and that their development is now completely at the same level as that to be expected for their age .

As far as the applicants are concerned , their circumstances seem to have stabilised in recent times . Thus , the couple moved from Angered in DATE and since then have been living in a more child - adapted environment in the community of GPE . The dispute which prevailed in the marriage at the time when the children were taken into care has been overcome , and it seems now as if the relations between the applicants are better . Following a request from their representative , the applicants have been examined by psychologist PERSON from GPE . This investigation shows that both applicants have an average level of intelligence .

Under LAW [ see paragraph DATE below ] , the decisive issue in determining whether care under the LAW in question should be terminated is whether it is no longer necessary . Facts such as the apparent improvement and stabilising of the applicants’ situation and the children ’s favourable development in their foster homes are an argument in favour of the termination of care . However , there are several circumstances militating in the opposite direction . PERSON , who during DATE has had several permissions to visit the GPE home , has been disturbed in various ways upon his return to the foster home and has relapsed into his previous negative behaviour . PERSON ’s return trip to the foster home on DATE does not seem to have been well planned and it developed in an unfortunate way for him . In addition , the applicants have so far had difficulties in co - operating in a satisfactory manner with PERSON ’s foster home and ORG . In making an assessment of all the facts of the case , the ORG finds that the applicants still show a lack of comprehension and ability to give the children satisfactory care and education . It must therefore be feared that a termination of care under the LAW can at present involve great risks for the health and development of the children . Care is therefore to continue and the appeal is rejected . "

ORG The applicants then appealed to ORG . After a hearing on DATE , at which they were present and assisted by counsel , the appeal was dismissed on DATE . The applicants had unsuccessfully requested that Dr. PERSON be called as a witness at the hearing .

Mr. and Mrs. PERSON sought to appeal to ORG , but on DATE it refused them leave to appeal .

ORG A fresh request by the applicants to the Council for termination of the care of the children was refused on DATE .

ORG On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the ORG rejected further requests by the applicants for termination of the care of GPE and PERSON and of PERSON , respectively ; on the first of these dates it also declined to lift the restriction on visits to GPE and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Appeals by the parents against these decisions were dismissed by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .

The applicants thereupon appealed to ORG , which joined the CARDINAL cases . After holding a hearing at which Mr. and Mrs. PERSON were present and gave evidence , ORG , by judgment of CARDINAL DATE , directed that the public care of PERSON be terminated : it took into consideration his recent positive development , his GPE increased understanding of his needs and their agreement that he should complete his current term of schooling at ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the appeal concerning GPE and PERSON - the scope of which was confined by Mr. and Mrs. PERSON themselves at the hearing to the care issue , to the exclusion of the access issue - was dismissed . ORG opinion that the public care of these CARDINAL children should continue was based primarily on the fact that the applicants were unable to understand and satisfy the special needs arising in connection with re - uniting parents and children after so long a period of separation .

Following an appeal by the parents , ORG , by judgment of DATE , directed that the public care of GPE and PERSON should terminate , there being no sufficiently serious circumstances to warrant its continuation . ORG pointed out that the question to be determined in deciding whether care should be discontinued pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph DATE below ) was whether there was still a need for care . The problems associated with the removal of a child from a foster home and its possible detrimental effects on him and with his reunification with his natural parents - on which ORG had relied - were matters to be considered not under section CARDINAL but in separate proceedings , namely an investigation under LAW of LAW DATE ( socialtjänstlagen CARDINAL ) . The latter section empowers a ORG to prohibit , for a certain period of time or until further notice , the removal from a foster home of a minor who is not or is no longer in public care , if there is thereby a risk , which is not of a minor nature , of harming his physical or mental health .

PERSON is now reunited with his parents .

However , on DATE the ORG , acting pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , prohibited them until further notice from removing PERSON and PERSON from their respective foster homes . An application by Mr. and Mrs. PERSON for the interim suspension of this prohibition was refused by ORG on DATE ; this decision was confirmed by ORG on DATE and , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal . On DATE , ORG rejected on the merits the applicants’ appeal against the prohibition ; it expressed the opinion that " a prohibition against removal should not be valid for too long a period " and that " a precondition for the rescission of the prohibition ... is that efforts should be made to improve contacts between the parents and children , both through Mr. and Mrs. PERSON and through ORG " . According to information supplied to ORG by the Government on DATE , an appeal by the applicants to ORG against this judgment was then pending ; in the meantime , they remained free to visit GPE and PERSON at the foster homes .

ORG According to NORP child - welfare legislation , each municipality is responsible for promoting the favourable development of children and young persons by taking , if necessary , supportive or preventive measures ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It may also take a child into care and place him in a foster home , a children ’s home or another suitable institution .

The legislation divides measures of the latter kind into CARDINAL categories : the first concerns " voluntary care " , enabling a parent to place his child into the care of a local authority ; the second provides for " compulsory care " , by establishing machinery whereby a local authority can obtain a court decision or order committing a child to its care . It was recourse to this machinery that was in issue in the present case .

ORG Decisions concerning the applicants’ children were taken under LAW and under LAW containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons DATE ( lag DATE : CARDINAL med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga - " LAW " ) . LAW complements LAW DATE , which deals with voluntary care ; on entering into force on DATE , they together replaced LAW . In general , decisions taken under LAW which were still in force on DATE were considered to be decisions taken under LAW .

ORG Under section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW , the competent local authority in child - care matters - ORG ( barnavårdsnämnden ) or , in GPE and GPE , ORG - was obliged to intervene ( translation from the NORP ) :

" [ if ] a person , not yet DATE , is maltreated in his home or otherwise treated there in a manner endangering his bodily or mental health , or if his development is jeopardised by the unfitness of his parents or other guardians responsible for his upbringing , or by their inability to raise the child . "

Section CARDINAL(b ) of LAW ( which was not applied in the present case ) provided that the local authority also had to intervene if a minor needed corrective measures because of his criminal , immoral or otherwise asocial behaviour .

ORG As regards section CARDINAL(a ) , the preparatory work to LAW stated , inter alia , the following ( translation from the NORP ) :

" In the future too , an important reason for intervention must be that a minor is exposed to physical maltreatment . The specific reference to this in the text of the statute seems to some extent to obscure the importance of the fact that children and young persons must also be protected from other kinds of treatment which may be harmful to their bodily or mental health . For this reason , the PERSON instead makes it a prerequisite for intervention that the minor is being maltreated in his home or that he is otherwise treated there in such a way as to endanger his bodily or mental health . This amendment in relation to the law now in force does not aim at bringing about any material change . Reasons for intervention , except for physical maltreatment , may be such as are given as examples in the preparatory work to the legislation now in force : for instance , that a child , who is perhaps being cared for with great tenderness , is all the same continuously exposed to mortal danger owing to his mother ’s mental illness , or that an infant is being cared for by a mother who is suffering from tuberculosis in a contagious state . Further examples may be that the minor is obliged to do work that is unreasonably hard considering his age or his strength , that he does not get enough to eat and is for that reason clearly undernourished , or that his home environment is marked by a considerable lack of hygiene . According to the practice that has been applied hitherto , it should also be possible to intervene in those instances where the parents - perhaps because of their religious convictions - omit to give the child the medical care and treatment that he needs . Among the cases where children are exposed to mental injury or danger may be mentioned the one where parents - with evident symptoms of mental abnormalities or of pathological attitudes - bring up their children in a way , as the committee puts it , that includes a kind of spiritual error and which often in the end causes their personality to develop in an undesirable way . When such upbringing has the result that the child ’s mental health is endangered , it comes under the section now dealt with .

For an intervention under section [ CARDINAL ) ] of LAW to be permitted , there must be a danger of the child ’s becoming a misfit because of his GPE vicious way of life or their negligence or inability to educate the child . The provision in question thus concerns abnormalities in the parents or in their capacity to educate ; it lays down that those abnormalities should be such as to endanger the child ’s social development . Parents and other custodians should be treated on equal terms in this respect . Otherwise only amendments of a formal nature seem to be required . Thus , it is suggested that the words ‘ vicious’ and ‘ negligence’ be replaced by the expression ‘ unsuitability as ORG , which seems more appropriate in this context . Obviously , the scope of this expression is somewhat wider than the one currently in use . Apart from ‘ vicious’ and ‘ negligent’ custodians , it thus also covers those suffering from serious mental abnormalities . There seems to be no reason to object to this enlargement of the field of application of this rule . Society should be entitled to intervene as soon as there is a danger of a young person ’s unfavourable social development owing to shortcomings in the custodian . Since the notion of ‘ misfit’ , as the committee has found , should be excluded from this legislation , the intervention of ORG has instead been made subject to the prerequisite that the development of the young person is in jeopardy . This means that intervention shall take place whenever needed to prevent such abnormalities of behaviour as are indicated under section [ CARDINAL ) ] . It should be pointed out that , just as is the case under the law now in force , an intervention does not require that there have so far been any signs of maladaptation in the young person in question . " ( Reproduced in CARDINAL II - FAC , " Journal for Legislation " - DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . )

ORG Conditions for compulsory care under LAW are set out in LAW , which reads ( translation from the NORP ) :

" Care is to be provided pursuant to this LAW for persons DATE if it may be presumed that the necessary care can not be given to the young person with the consent of the person or persons having custody of him and , in the case of a young person aged DATE or more , with the consent of the young person .

Care is to be provided for a young person if :

ORG lack of care for him or any other condition in the home entails a danger to his health or development ; or

ORG the young person is seriously endangering his health or development by abuse of habit - forming agents , criminal behaviour or any other comparable behaviour .

ORG The following are extracts from the preparatory work to LAW , as reproduced in NJA II CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ( translation from the NORP ) .

ORG stated :

" An important point of departure for the reform of the social services is that salient features in the handling of individual cases should be respect for liberty and the right of the individual to decide about his own life . The aim of the social services should be to co - operate with the client as far as possible , in order to make him take part in decisions as to the planning of treatment and make him co - operate actively in carrying it out . The social services should offer help and support , but not take over the individual ’s responsibility for his own life . Personal initiative and responsibility must be made part of care and treatment . In this manner the social services may work more actively in a preventive way , and the opportunity to achieve more long - lasting results will be improved .

This fundamental principle of the new legislation has been laid down in section CARDINAL of the Social Services Bill , which stipulates that the measures taken by ORG in regard to any individual person should be conceived and carried out in co - operation with the person concerned . Consequently , all social services’ opportunities to use coercive measures on adults have been abolished . It is true that , regarding young people and children , the possibility of providing care outside their home contrary to the wishes of the young person or his parents is retained . In this field too , the reform means , however , that the right of the individual to be a party to those decisions that concern his own fate is more strongly stressed . The individual should be able to turn to the social services confidently and ask for help , without risking undesired effects in the form of various coercive measures .

At the same time there is unanimity in considering that in certain cases society must be able to use coercive measures against an individual , whenever this is needed to avoid an immediate risk to somebody ’s life or health . "

The Minister of ORG stated :

" LAW , second paragraph , point CARDINAL , indicates that CARDINAL ground for measures on the part of society is that lack of care for a young person in his home or some other situation in his home constitutes a danger to his health or development . This rule refers to situations where the young person does not receive sufficient care in his home or is exposed to treatment in his home that means there is a danger to his mental or physical health or to his social development . By the word ‘ home’ is to be understood the home of the parents , as well as any other home where the young person is residing permanently . Under this description come , inter alia , cases where the young person is subject to maltreatment in his home . Even a slight degree of maltreatment must be supposed to cause danger to the health or development of the young person . If , in such a case , the parents oppose such measures as ORG may consider necessary to assure the protection of the young person , application of the law may come into focus . In case there has been maltreatment of a more serious kind , the young person should as a matter of course be provided with care outside his home , at least for some time .

As with LAW , this provision may also be applied in those instances where the parents intend to place the young person in an environment that will endanger his health or his development , or where they do not prevent him from being in such an environment .

This section thus embraces all those situations where the child is being exposed to physical maltreatment or negligent care . This legislation may also be applicable if parents endanger the mental health of a child by their personal characteristics . If the child ’s mental health or development is being endangered because of parental behaviour - for instance , by way of continuously recurring scenes at home owing to abuse of alcohol or narcotics - or because of the mental abnormality or state of the parents , it should be possible to provide care for the child under LAW .

The LAW is primarily aimed at enabling the social services to provide for the young person ’s need of care . It is the current need of care , and what can be done at the moment and in the future to see to it that this need is met , that will govern the measures taken by ORG . As I have pointed out in my general statement concerning this PERSON , this legislation can , however , not be used to provide for society ’s need for protection . It is a different matter that , in those instances where a young person needs to be taken into care according to this LAW , this measure will also have the effect of protecting society .

ORG is to take appropriate measures as soon as it considers that a situation such as has been indicated in the second paragraph under points CARDINAL and CARDINAL arises . It may , for instance , have come to the knowledge of the ORG that a child is being exposed to unsuitable treatment or even to actual danger at home . During an inquiry the situation may appear to be such that the child ought to be provided with care outside his home . The ORG should then in the first place try to meet the need for care by reaching an understanding with the parents . In case the parents and the ORG can not reach an agreement as to the question of how the child should be cared for , the ORG must turn to ORG to obtain a decision on care under LAW , with an inherent authorisation permitting the ORG to make decisions regarding the way in which the care should be implemented . "

ORG was empowered to exercise functions and make decisions in child - welfare matters within a municipality ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . In doing so , it had to give particular attention to minors who were exposed to the risk of unfavourable development due to their physical and mental health , home and family conditions and other circumstances ( section CARDINAL ) . ORG was composed of lay members who were assisted by social workers .

ORG Since the DATE social - services legislation entered into force , the functions of ORG have been taken over by ORG , which are composed in the same way as the former ORG but are responsible for social welfare in general .

The tasks of ORG may , as is the case in GPE , be performed by CARDINAL or more ORG , each being responsible for a designated area . In child - care matters , a ORG has the same powers and duties as a ORG .

ORG As were ORG , ORG are under the supervision and control of ORG and ORG ( socialstyrelsen ) .

Child Welfare Boards sought and received information about ill - treatment of children or their unsatisfactory living conditions through various officials having frequent contacts with children , such as social workers , doctors , nurses and teachers . Matters of this kind could also be reported to the ORG by private citizens . Upon receipt of such information , a ORG had to undertake , without delay , a comprehensive investigation , including interviews , medical examinations and visits to the child ’s home .

ORG If ORG found that the child ’s situation corresponded to that described in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it had , before resorting to care , to endeavour to remedy the matter by preventive measures ( förebyggande åtgärder ) . These could consist of CARDINAL or more of the following steps : advice , material support , admonition or warning , orders pertaining to the child ’s living conditions , or supervision ( section CARDINAL ) . If such measures proved insufficient or were considered pointless , the ORG had to place the child in care ( section CARDINAL ) .

However , a child had to be taken provisionally into care for investigation ( without the need for prior preventive measures ) if there was a probable cause for intervention under LAW and if there would otherwise be a risk of deterioration in his situation . Such a decision was valid for a maximum period of DATE ( section CARDINAL ) .

In urgent situations where the decision of the ORG LAW or CARDINAL could not be awaited , LAW empowered the Chairman of ORG to take interim action alone . If he did so , he had to convene a meeting of ORG within DATE in order that a decision be taken in the matter .

ORG Further procedural requirements for placing a child in care under LAW or CARDINAL of the DATE Act were set out in section CARDINAL ; in particular , the decision had to be notified without delay to the parents concerned . If they disagreed , the matter had to be referred for review to ORG within DATE .

ORG Under LAW , if a ORG considers that certain action is necessary , it has to apply to ORG for a decision ; unlike ORG under LAW , it can not take the decision itself .

In urgent cases , however , the ORG or its Chairman may place a child in care as a provisional measure ; such a step must be referred within DATE to ORG , for decision within DATE .

ORG When a care decision has been taken , ORG ( formerly ORG ) has to implement it , by attending to the practical details of such matters as where to place the child and what education and other treatment to give him ( sections CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the DATE Act and sections CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG The DATE Act provided that a child who had been taken into care was entitled to good care and upbringing as well as the education that was necessary in the light of his personal capacity and other circumstances . The child had preferably to be placed in a foster home or , if that was not possible , in a suitable institution , such as a children ’s home or school ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) . ORG had to supervise the care and the development of the child and , if necessary , take decisions concerning his or her personal affairs ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

During the course of the preparatory work to LAW , ORG stressed that it was essential for the development of the child that the parents had regular contacts with him ; this was also of decisive importance so as to ensure that his return to his original home could be effected smoothly . In fact , LAW of the DATE Act provides that he may be allowed , after a period , to return to live there , if it appears that such a course is the best in order to further the aims of the care decision .

ORG The DATE Act provided that ORG could regulate a parent ’s right of access to his child in care to the extent that it found this reasonable in the light of the aims of the care decision , the upbringing of the child or other circumstances ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW , restrictions on access can be imposed by ORG , in so far as this is necessary for the purposes of the care decision ( section CARDINAL ) . Unlike LAW , LAW expressly empowers the authority concerned to refuse to disclose the child ’s whereabouts .

ORG Under LAW ) of LAW , compulsory care had to be discontinued as soon as the aims of the care decision had been achieved . The corresponding rule in LAW provides that the ORG shall terminate care when it is no longer necessary ( section CARDINAL , first paragraph ) . The preparatory work to this provision , as reproduced in the ORG ’s PERSON ( DATE , p. CARDINAL ) , stated ( translation from the NORP ) :

" It follows that an important task of the ORG is to see to it that ... care does not continue for longer than is necessary in the circumstances . Care is to be discontinued as soon as there is no longer any need for the special prerogatives granted to the ORG by the LAW . It is true that it is part of the custodian ’s responsibility resting with the ORG to pay close attention to the care provided by other people on the ORG ’s behalf . However , against the background of , inter alia , the way LAW is DATE applied , it has been considered important that the supervisory duties of the ORG are clearly laid down in the text of the [ new ] Act . "

Section CARDINAL of the Social Services Ordinance DATE ( socialtjänst- förordningen CARDINAL ) lays down that a care decision based on unsatisfactory conditions in the child ’s home must be reconsidered by ORG regularly and at least once DATE .

Both before and after the entry into force of LAW , a parent could , under the general principles of NORP administrative law , at any time request that the compulsory care of his child be terminated .

ORG Decisions of ORG that a child be taken into care might ( under LAW ) or may ( under LAW ) be the subject of an appeal to ORG and , with leave , to ORG .

A parent could or can also appeal to ORG ( and then to ORG and , with leave , to ORG ) against :

( a ) refusals by ORG or ORG to terminate care ordered under the DATE or LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine above ) ;

( b ) decisions taken by ORG under LAW relating , inter alia , to the visiting rights of the parents ;

( c ) decisions taken by ORG under LAW as to where the care should commence ; to change a placement decision ; regulating the GPE right of access ; and not to disclose the child ’s whereabouts to them ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) .

According to the Government , LAW did not entitle a parent to appeal to ORG against a placement decision as such , but LAW does . The Government maintained , however , that the applicants could at any time have raised before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) - with the possibility of a subsequent appeal to ORG and thence to ORG - a plea that , as a result of their placement and contrary to the requirements of LAW , the children were not receiving proper care and education .