Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 8

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The applicants are NORP nationals and live in Götene . The first applicant ( born in DATE ) is of NORP origin while the second applicant ( born in DATE ) originates from the GPE . She arrived in GPE in DATE and later obtained NORP nationality . In DATE the first and the second applicant married . Their CARDINAL children , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and C. ( born in DATE ) , have been raised bilingually , speaking NORP and NORP .

In DATE A. told personnel at her school that she , her mother and her siblings were being beaten at home by her father and that he looked at her in a strange way . She was afraid to go home with her father . The school contacted the social services but , after a meeting with the first and second applicants , the matter was dismissed as fabrications by A. However , the first and second applicants agreed to PERSON seeing the school psychologist . It would seem that her contact with the psychologist lasted only for a short time .

NORP In DATE the first applicant 's sister , PERSON , contacted ORG ( socialnämnden ) of ORG and informed them that PERSON had called her to ask for help to leave home . According to ORG had told her that her father used to beat her and her siblings .

On DATE ran away from her mother while in town , with the intent of travelling to see I. However , the second applicant stopped her at the train station and a violent argument erupted between mother and daughter . The police were called and they were taken to the police station where the social services intervened . PERSON told the authorities that her father beat her and treated her in a degrading manner . She insisted that she wanted to go to stay with ORG After the social services had discussed the matter with the first and second applicants , they agreed to a voluntary placement of A. in a family home , as long as she was not going to stay with ORG since the first applicant had a very poor relationship with his sister .

On DATE , the first and second applicants met with the social services and were informed that an investigation had been opened into the family 's situation and that it concerned all CARDINAL children . They stated that they were a normal family and that they had no idea why PERSON was behaving in such a way . The social services proposed that the second applicant live with her children away from their home during the investigation since the suspicions about ill - treatment were not directed against her . This offer was declined and the first and second applicants refused to consent to the younger children being placed in a family home .

After DATE at a family home , A. was transferred to PERSON , an evaluation home ( utredningshem ) , to receive professional help and have her situation examined . She told personnel at the home that the first applicant had sexually abused her since DATE and that he regularly beat her , treated her in an abusive manner and insulted her . This information was reported to the police and an investigation into the matter was opened . When questioned by the police , PERSON maintained her allegations . However , the first applicant denied all accusations against him .

On DATE ORG decided , under section CARDINAL of the Act with Special Provisions on ORG ( ORG med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga , CARDINAL - hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) , immediately to take all CARDINAL children into public care on a provisional basis . It considered that , on the basis of the information given by PERSON , she and her younger siblings had to be protected from their father and receive professional care and support . A. had expressed a strong fear of her father and of her own reactions to possible demands from her parents . She had also alleged that her father physically abused her and her younger siblings and that he controlled and verified everything in the family , from telephone calls to the women 's menstrual cycles . The council further noted that the parents had refused to let the social services meet and talk to B. and C. A meeting between the parents and the authorities had also been rendered impossible as the parents had insisted that their lawyer be present and he had been too busy . In ORG view , it was absolutely necessary to talk to the parents as well as to the children to assess the family 's situation .

The first and second applicants stated that they had invited the social services to visit their home but that this invitation had been declined .

B. and C. were kept at school by the social services on DATE while their parents were informed about the immediate public care decision . The first applicant contacted his friend , who was also the family 's legal representative , for advice and the parents were then allowed to talk briefly to PERSON and C. on the telephone . The children were apparently very agitated . They were initially placed in a home for care and residence but , on DATE , they were moved to an evaluation home called GPE .

The first and second applicants opposed the measure , as they claimed that the accusations were groundless and that PERSON and C. were fine and happy at home . As concerned A. , they agreed to her staying at the evaluation home in order to clarify her behaviour and for her to receive appropriate help . Moreover , they requested that the children undergo a medical examination to establish their state of health and to verify whether they had been abused .

NORP The legal representative , assigned to defend the children 's best interest , supported the provisional care order and , on DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG ( länsrätten ) of Mariestad confirmed the decision of ORG . The first and second applicants did not appeal against this judgment .

Prior to ORG judgment , all CARDINAL children had undergone medical examinations focusing on their general health only .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG for a permanent care order in respect of the CARDINAL children , in accordance with section QUANTITY of LAW . ORG had carried out an investigation into the family 's situation , based on conversations with A. and people in her circle such as teachers and relatives and the first and second applicants had also been heard . From the investigation , the council made the assessment that ORG 's account of sexual and other abuse was very credible , noting that she had given specific examples of the abuse , and that she had been raised in an environment entirely controlled by her father . She was in a poor mental state and she did not want to have any contact with her parents . In light of the investigation 's result , the council maintained that the children had been ill - treated at home and that there was a clear risk of impairment to their health and development if they were not protected .

The first and second applicants opposed the measure , insisting that there was no need for the CARDINAL younger children to be in care and that , since they had agreed to voluntary care for A. , there was no need for compulsory measures .

The children 's legal representative agreed that it would be in the best interest of the children to be placed in public care on a permanent basis .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing during which it found that the investigation into the situation of the CARDINAL younger children was insufficient and further examination was needed . Hence , it adjourned the case in relation to them but proceeded with the case in regard to A. , since the evaluation home had carried out an in - depth social , psychological and psychiatric examination of her . According to this examination , she showed different personalities and had not developed a will of her own or a sense of “ self ” because of the insecure and unpredictable living conditions which she had endured for DATE . She had difficulties relating emotionally , socially and physically to other persons , had a very strong fear of being abandoned and was in constant need of another person to confirm her actions , decisions and thoughts . She also wavered between feeling that she had done the right thing to tell of the abuse and regretting it and just wanting to return home . She had difficulties trusting adults but there was nothing to indicate that she was making up stories . She was in need of all - embracing professional help in a secure environment for a long time .

The first and the second applicants maintained that A. was fabricating stories and that no abuse had occurred in their home . However , they agreed that she was in need of help but contended that it could be provided on a voluntary basis .

On DATE ORG granted a permanent care order for A. It found that she was in a very difficult situation and had serious problems which had been caused by bad conditions at home . Moreover , it considered that , in order to ensure that her treatment was not interrupted or jeopardised , it was necessary to take her into public care permanently as care on a voluntary basis could , at any time , be interrupted by her parents . The judgment was not appealed against and , consequently , gained legal force .

In DATE was transferred to another evaluation home , PERSON , which was to provide care and treatment for her as well as establishing co - operation with her parents on matters such as contact with relatives and others .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the case concerning B. and C. A social and psychological examination of the children had been carried out at the evaluation home and ORG had finalised its investigation . From these evaluations , it appeared that C. was very attached to her older brother and gave the impression of being very insecure and younger than her actual age . It was not possible to give a clear answer as to whether or not she had been exposed to a specific kind of abuse but , on the basis of her emotional development and her behaviour at the evaluation home , it was found that the parents had exposed her to some form of abuse or ill - treatment . With regard to PERSON , the evaluation showed that he was ambitious and responsible but that he was under a lot of pressure as he identified with his parents and was unwilling to talk about his situation . Moreover , on several occasions , he had hidden in a closet when someone was angry with him because he had been afraid to be yelled at or beaten by the personnel . Both children had mentioned that they had been beaten by their father and that they had seen him beat PERSON and they gave specific examples of such incidents . Although the abuse committed against the children had not caused physical damage , it was found that it could potentially have caused permanent psychological damage and even more so since their mother had not intervened to protect them . However , apparently , both children had promised their parents not to talk about their home situation and were keen to keep this promise , which had prolonged their evaluation . It was concluded that both children were in need of long - term qualified care outside their home to deal with their negative experiences and be protected from their father .

The first and the second applicants disputed the findings and questioned whether the evaluation had been carried out in an objective manner . In any event , they claimed that the psychological assessments had been inadequate and they insisted that they had never ill - treated their children and that any indications to that effect from the children were fabrications .

On DATE ORG granted permanent care orders for B. and C. It had regard to the fact that it had found the conditions in the home to have caused PERSON 's serious health - related disturbances and noted that this , naturally , also had a bearing on the assessment in relation to the younger children . It further found no reason to question the methodology used by the specialists at the evaluation home and considered that their conclusions showed that the conditions in the applicants ' home had not been good and that B. 's and C. 's health and development had been hampered and risked being even further impaired if they did not get adequate and appropriate help and support . In this respect , the court observed that the children had shown unusual behaviour for their age , sometimes sexualised , and had made astonishing remarks about violence . They had also , in various ways , expressed that they were not allowed by their parents to talk about their home situation .

The first and the second applicants appealed against the judgment to ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE , requesting that the care order be repealed and that PERSON and C. be returned home immediately , since there were no reasons to keep them in public care .

On DATE the prosecutor decided to discontinue the preliminary investigation relating to A. 's accusations of sexual abuse by her father . This decision was in part due to the fact that she had retracted substantial parts of her accusations .

ORG contested the appeal and submitted , inter alia , that PERSON 's withdrawal of her accusations against her father did not necessarily mean that they were untrue . According to the council , it was very common for children who had told about poor home conditions later to alter or retract their statements when they realised what consequences these statements might entail for their family . In any event , the younger children had not withdrawn what they had said during police interviews and their behaviour and statements supported that various forms of abuse had occurred in their home . The children needed to be placed in family homes , receive psychiatric help and to re - establish contact with their parents .

The children 's legal representative also contested the appeal , noting that since contact had been re - established between the parents and B. and C. , the children had changed in a negative way . PERSON 's need to control had returned , he gave daily reports to his parents and he took on adult responsibilities . Still , it was important that the contact had been restored .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the case where witnesses for both parties were heard and a video recording of a police interview with A. held on DATE was shown to the court at the request of the first and second applicants . Written evidence was also invoked , including copies of police interviews held with PERSON and C.

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court 's judgment in full . It first noted that the DATE Act was protective legislation , intended to prevent children from being seriously harmed either through their own lifestyle or through detrimental circumstances in their home environment . In the latter case , a balance had to be struck between the parents ' right to raise their children and the child 's right to be protected from harm . The court then observed that , in the present case , the parents and the social services had given completely contradictory information about the children and their situation . However , it noted that all CARDINAL children had , at some point , told both police officers and personnel at the evaluation homes that their father had exposed them to physical , psychological and verbal violence . In the court 's view , there was no reasonable explanation why all QUANTITY children would tell lies about their parents . Moreover , professionals at the evaluation homes had observed and assessed the children 's behaviour and had found them to be afraid of being beaten or otherwise badly treated . Thus , the court concluded that , even though A. had retracted substantial parts of her accusations , the material in the case still supported the view that PERSON and C. had been the victims of such ill - treatment in their home that there was a substantial risk to their health and development unless they got proper care outside their home .

The parents appealed against the judgment to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) but later withdrew their appeal . Consequently , on DATE , the court struck the case out of its list of cases and ORG judgment gained legal force .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG , in accordance with LAW , re - examined the need for public care of the CARDINAL children and found that it should be continued . In relation to A. , it was found that she had a very deep split in her personality which could often be seen in children who had been in a position of strong negative dependence on a parent . Her behaviour reflected a traumatic up - bringing . Moreover , she had been in need of very close contact with aunt PERSON who , in turn , had set down limits to their contact . A. had reacted strongly to this and had felt let down . In DATE she had called her father once but had reacted very strongly to their conversation . After this she did not want to say more about the abuse and she no longer knew if she wanted to maintain what she had previously said , although she did not deny that it was true . Turning to B. , it was observed that he had been involved in adult conflicts and family secrets by his parents which was a heavy burden for him and that he was afraid of his father 's and others ' anger . He had developed positively at GPE and needed continued care and protection from his father . C. had lived in a strictly controlled environment with secrets and both physical and mental abuse and , although she had improved at the evaluation home , she was in need of continuous care and protection . Moreover , although the parents had been encouraged to suggest relatives from the mother 's side with whom the children could have contact , they had not done so .

Following the discontinuation of the preliminary investigation on DATE , the first and second applicants requested ORG to reconsider its decision and end the public care of all CARDINAL children .

By decision of DATE , ORG maintained the permanent care order of the children as it considered that they needed care and treatment outside their home . It observed that PERSON had called her father and her parents ' previous legal representative , who was also a long standing personal friend of her parents , on several occasions during DATE leading up to the police interview on DATE , when she retracted substantial parts of her accusations against her father . During the conversations with her father , she had cried and been very upset but once the police interview was over she had become much calmer , almost cheerful .

The first applicant and his and the second applicant 's legal counsel were present at both of ORG meetings . However , they did not appeal against any of the decisions .

On DATE ORG again re - examined the need for public care of the CARDINAL children to continue and found that it was necessary as they were in great need of professional help and support from secure adults . It also decided to move PERSON to another evaluation home upon her own request and to move PERSON and C. to a family home . It was observed that the first and second applicants had refused to meet staff at ORG to be informed about the care provided to A. and how she was doing . They had also refused to meet PERSON at a “ neutral ” place in GPE , apparently because they wanted the legal proceedings to end first . However , the first applicant had spoken very frequently with her on the telephone and PERSON had become very involved in the proceedings concerning both her and her younger siblings which hindered the progress of her treatment and care . She had also stated that her father had never abused her and that she did not need any care .

The first and the second applicants appealed against this decision to ORG and requested that the care orders be terminated in respect of all CARDINAL children . In any event , they demanded that all access restrictions between them and their children be lifted and that they be told where their children were being kept ( see below under “ Access restrictions ” ) . They maintained that the children had always been well treated at home . Moreover , they claimed that the younger children had been ill - treated at the evaluation home and had suffered from being there . In this respect , they considered it discriminatory that B. and C. had not been allowed to speak NORP with their mother on the telephone and that relatives from their mother 's side had not been allowed any contact with them . They invoked witness statements supporting their claims and an assessment made by a specialist in this field , PERSON , which strongly criticised the social services ' handling of the case . In particular , he considered that the social services ' investigation lacked basic objectivity , was influenced by the investigators ' own views and beliefs that abuse had taken place in the applicants ' home and that there was a complete absence of willingness or efforts to consider or find alternative explanations to the children 's behaviour .

A new legal representative had been nominated for the children and he supported the parents ' appeal . He stated that during the conversations that he had had with B. and C. there was no doubt that they wished to return home to their parents . He was very critical of the first police interview with A. and noted that no one in the family 's home town had ever seen the children being hurt .

ORG contested the applicants ' claims and submitted that all persons involved in assessing the children had found that they had psychological problems and had showed deficient behaviour at the evaluation homes . Moreover , the investigation into the children 's situation had started with information from the children themselves and should therefore be taken seriously .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the case , where several witness were heard , including Dr B. Edvardsson . A. was given the opportunity to express her views on the matter , before the court but in a separate room . She stated that she had been under the influence of her aunt , PERSON , and that it was PERSON who had incited her falsely to accuse her father .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG repealed ORG decision and ordered that the public care of all CARDINAL children be terminated . The judgment was enforceable immediately even if it was appealed against . The court found that , since the children no longer maintained their earlier statements concerning violence and bad conditions at home , higher demands had to be required of the investigations and evaluations of the children than earlier . It then considered that part of the criticism expressed by PERSON against the social services ' investigations and assessments of the children was justified and raised doubts as to their conclusions . Moreover , it noted that , although the social services had attached much weight to the information provided by ORG , she had not been heard before the courts . On the contrary , the witnesses who had been heard had all stated that they found the family to be normal and to have good home conditions . Thus , having regard to all circumstances , the court concluded that there was no longer sufficient support to believe that the deficient home conditions which had formed the basis of the care orders had ever existed . Therefore it was not justified to keep the children in public care .

In TIME of DATE , the first and second applicants , together with their legal representative , fetched PERSON and C. from their family home and then the second applicant travelled with them to relatives in another country .

However , already on DATE , ORG had appealed against ORG judgment and requested that it be suspended until ORG had considered the case . The request was granted by the court on DATE and PERSON was therefore not allowed to leave the evaluation home .

ORG alleged before ORG that the children were in continued need of care and professional treatment . This was particularly so since the parents had refused to co - operate with the social services throughout the process and did not ensure the best interests of their children .

The first and second applicants disputed the claims and referred to the lower court 's judgment , which they considered to reflect correctly the situation . They further maintained that the social services ' accusations against them were untrue and that their home had been open . However , the authorities had not listened to them and had confronted them with ready - made decisions . Moreover , they stated that the only reason why they had not seen A. since the hearing before ORG was that the social services had not permitted it .

The children 's legal representative supported the parents ' stance and considered that there existed no grounds whatsoever on which to continue the public care of the children . He further requested that A. be heard by the court .

In a decision of DATE , ORG rejected the representative 's request on the ground that A. had already been heard before the lower court , that it had the recording of this hearing and that no new circumstances had been invoked which justified hearing the child anew .

After having held an oral hearing where , among others , ORG testified , ORG , on DATE , decided to repeal the lower court 's judgment and uphold ORG decision to continue the public care of the CARDINAL children . The court found that the children were in need of continued , professional care outside their home ; A. in order to work through the traumas that she had experienced in her home environment and PERSON and C. in order to learn to control their aggression and deal with their negative experiences . It further considered that all CARDINAL children were in need of protection from the negative influence of their parents who had their own , and not their children 's , best interest at heart . This was manifested in their lack of co - operation with the social services to facilitate the children 's return home and the very limited amount of time which they had spent with their children since they had been in public care . In this respect , it was noted that the parents had not taken the opportunity to visit A. when they had been offered to do so after she had been taken into public care . Thus , the court concluded that the children 's care orders should be maintained .

The parents appealed to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG reviewed the public care of the children in accordance with LAW and decided that it should continue . It noted that it had little information on the younger children 's whereabouts following DATE but the fact that they were kept in hiding by their parents could mean an additional risk to their health and development . As concerned PERSON , it was observed that she had become very involved in the proceedings and that her parents allowed and encouraged her to participate instead of relieving her of that burden . The council was firm in its view that PERSON was in need of long - term professional treatment and care outside her home .

The first and second applicants appealed against the decision , stating that ORG decision lacked reasoning , and maintaining that there had never existed any grounds on which to take the children into public care . They submitted a report , dated DATE , by a psychologist , PERSON , who had met with the whole family during DATE and had gone through all the material relevant to the case . In the report , it was noted that the children felt that they had not been listened to by the authorities or the personnel at the evaluation homes but that , instead , they had been pressured by them . Dr PERSON found no proof that the children had been traumatised in their home . On the contrary , she considered that the trauma for B. and C. had taken place when they had suddenly been separated from their parents without understanding why and then , for DATE , had not been allowed to talk to their parents . Moreover , they had not benefited from normal schooling and they had not been well cared for at the evaluation homes . In conclusion , she observed that the children denied that any abuse had taken place at home or that there had otherwise been any problems . They had expressed a strong wish to return home , which ORG agreed would be best for them .

The children 's legal representative also appealed against ORG decision , claiming that there were no grounds on which to continue the public care . He stated that , on PERSON 's own initiative , she had been examined by a gynaecologist , which had shown that she had never been sexually abused . A certificate to this effect was submitted to the court .

ORG contested the appeals and submitted that the assessments made at the evaluation homes had shown that the children were unwell . Thus , it was not so important to know if PERSON actually had been the victim of sexual abuse since , in any event , the council had not dwelt on the reason why the children were unwell , but had focused on providing them with qualified care .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG reversed ORG decision and ordered the immediate termination of the care orders . It first observed that the criticism which it had noted already in its previous judgment concerning the investigations and evaluations of the children remained . It then had regard to the report made by ORG and observed that it corresponded to what PERSON had said during the oral hearing , notably that there had been a lack of interest from the personnel at the evaluation home and the social services once she had withdrawn substantial parts of her accusations against her father . The court considered that PERSON had given a mature and trustworthy impression and that there were no longer any concrete grounds for keeping her in public care . With regard to PERSON , the court took into account that they had now lived with their mother for DATE and , since it had found that the investigation no longer showed that the situation in the home was deficient , it was not in the children 's best interest to remain in public care . On DATE left the evaluation home .

ORG did not appeal against this judgment and so it gained legal force . The council considered that all CARDINAL children were still in need of care and protection but that since none of them were de facto in public care anymore , it was found to be in their best interest not to appeal against the court 's judgment .

On DATE , DATE that B. and C. were moved to GPE , ORG decided to prohibit all contact , including by telephone , between the parents and PERSON and C. They were allowed to write letters to each other and the parents were to be given continuous information concerning the children from the personnel at GPE . The council was of the opinion that the first and second applicants had a negative influence on the children and would try to hinder their speaking to or trusting the authorities . PERSON had expressed a worry about how to handle certain “ family secrets ” and what his father would approve of him telling . This decision was not appealed against .

On DATE ORG decided to prolong the prohibition of all contact between the parents and the CARDINAL younger children until ORG had decided whether or not to grant the permanent care order . It considered that it was clear that , in relation to their parents , the children felt obliged to pretend to be on their father 's side against the authorities and they had been told not to trust anyone outside the family . Moreover , there was a real risk that the parents would interfere in the investigation and try to influence the children negatively if they were allowed direct contact . Thus , it was in the best interest of B. and C. not to see or talk to their parents . However , they were free to write letters to each other whenever they wanted . This decision was not appealed against either .

According to the report from GPE , of DATE , B. and C. had continuously received letters from their parents and had replied to them when they wanted to . The first applicant had called PERSON on a regular basis to hear how the children were doing but the second applicant had never called . Moreover , both children had spoken warmly about their relatives on their mother 's side but , since they lived in GPE , it was considered that they could not contribute in providing structure and stability in the children 's everyday life . PERSON and C. had had some telephone contact with their paternal grandfather but he had announced that he no longer wished to have contact with them . They had regular contact with aunt I.

In DATE the first applicant requested that the children be given language lessons in NORP at the evaluation homes in order to keep up their mother tongue and also that they be allowed to visit the NORP church . It would appear that these requests were never formally treated by ORG but that , in practice , they were rejected as the children were allowed neither to speak their mother tongue nor to have contact with the NORP church .

On DATE ORG again prolonged the prohibition of all contact between the parents and the CARDINAL younger children but , at the same time , decided that co - operation between the social services and the parents should be commenced concerning how contact between the parents and children could take place . It was noted that both children were developing well at GPE , that they had contact with some relatives and that the possibility of establishing contact with more of their relatives was being explored . The children were also encouraged to write letters to their parents but often chose not to , since they were afraid that their parents would be angry if they said how they were doing at the evaluation home . The first and second applicants were dissatisfied with the situation but could envisage refraining from contact with their children for as long as the police investigation was on - going in order to avoid potential accusations that they influenced the children .

However , on DATE , the prohibition on the parents ' contact with B. and C. was ended by ORG as a direct consequence of the cancellation of the preliminary investigation on DATE . It was decided that contact should be initiated immediately between the parents and the CARDINAL children and the ORG staff were given the task of finding an agreement on how these contacts should be pursued .

On DATE , DATE , the parents were informed that they were allowed to telephone B. and C. It would appear that the second applicant and the children were told not to speak NORP with each other since the personnel supervising the conversations did not understand . Moreover , in DATE , it was decided that the children should have no further contact with aunt PERSON in order to avoid further pressure on them , since the first and the second applicants opposed the contact .

On DATE ORG decided to move PERSON and C. from GPE to Vårsol , a home for care and residence . At the same time , it decided that the location of the children should be kept secret from the first and second applicants and that all contact with the children , including by telephone , should again be prohibited . However , contact in writing would be allowed , but only via the social services . The reasons for the decision were , essentially , that the first and second applicants had not followed the guidelines concerning contact with the children given by the social services and that the contacts had had a very negative effect on , in particular , PERSON , who had become very unstable , difficult to handle and controlling towards his little sister . C. had also reacted negatively and had been heard to tell her parents several times on the telephone that they should not beat her if she moved back home . To begin with , the parents had called every day and , after restrictions imposed by the evaluation home because of PERSON 's negative change in behaviour , they called CARDINAL times per week . At DATE the social services had proposed that the parents meet staff from GPE and the responsible social worker to be informed about the children 's development , schooling and health and to plan the meetings with the children . The goal was to ensure that the meetings would be positive for the children , who had expressed a strong wish to see their parents . The parents refused this preparatory meeting on the ground that the staff had already labelled the first applicant and therefore they did not wish to have any contact with staff or other adults in the children 's vicinity . They wanted a priest , who was close to the family , to visit the children , which was arranged . In DATE the first applicant , together with CARDINAL others , came unannounced to GPE , accusing the staff of mistreating the children . On DATE the children 's cousin , on their mother 's side , was to make a scheduled visit to the children but the first and second applicants arrived , unannounced , with him . Still , the staff decided to invite them all in to visit the children for TIME but wanted to talk to the parents alone first . PERSON wanted to join them , the staff refused , but the first applicant allegedly did not respect this and said that they had no secrets from PERSON The meeting then became agitated and it was decided that the parents and cousin should take the children out for a pizza and then return . Upon return , the situation became chaotic with the children screaming and refusing to re - enter the home . The cousin threatened a member of the staff and police were called . In these circumstances , it was considered that the children needed to be protected from the negative and destabilising influence of their parents to be able to get some peace and benefit from the care . Information on how to appeal against the decision was attached but no appeal was lodged .

On DATE ORG decided to prolong the prohibition of all contact between the parents and the CARDINAL younger children . It was also decided to move the children to a family home , which was done on DATE , and to keep their new whereabouts secret from their parents . The restrictions would end when certain conditions in the applicable work plan of the children were met .

The first and second applicants appealed against the decision in connection with their appeal against the continued public care of the children ( see above § DATE ) . Following ORG judgment on DATE , B. and C. left GPE together with their mother .

DATE . With regard to A. , no formal decision was made concerning access restrictions but it would appear that the contact was based on ORG 's wishes and some sort of acceptance by , or agreement with , the first and second applicants , although they later denied this .

On DATE the Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination ( Ombudsmannen mot etnisk diskriminering ) issued a statement in response to a complaint filed by the second applicant . The ORG noted that the children 's need of contact with the NORP culture had not been fully satisfied while they were in public care but that ORG and the second applicant had different opinions as to the reason for this . According to the ORG , it could not be concluded on the basis of the case - file that the social services ' treatment of the children had been affected negatively because of their or their mother 's ethnic origin . Moreover , the ORG noted that whether or not the municipality or specific officials had acted wrongfully was being investigated by ORG and ORG , for which reasons there were no grounds for it to forestall these investigations .

NORP In DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( länsstyrelsen ) of GPE about the poor , discriminatory conditions at GPE while PERSON and C. had been there . In a decision of DATE , the ORG found that the children 's unit at ORG , when the children first arrived there , had limited PERSON 's and ORG 's contact with their parents despite lacking a formal decision from ORG authorising them to do so . ORG also criticised the evaluation home for not having handed over its journals concerning the children until DATE after this had been requested by the first applicant .

Furthermore , in DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( Skolverket ) that the children had been deprived of proper schooling whilst in public care . On DATE the Agency criticised GPE for not having fulfilled its obligation to provide education for the CARDINAL younger children from DATE until DATE . Since the time before DATE was time - barred , the ORG dismissed this part of the complaint .

According to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL and section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , compulsory public care is to be provided if there is a clear risk of impairment of the health and development of a person DATE due to ill - treatment , exploitation , lack of care or any other condition in the home and if the necessary care can not be provided with the consent of the young person 's guardian . The decision to place a young person in public care is made by ORG following an application from ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG may order the immediate taking into care of a young person ( “ provisional care order ” ) if it is likely that he or she needs to be provided with care under LAW and a court decision in the matter can not be awaited owing to the risks to the young person 's health or development or because the continuing investigation could be seriously impeded or further measures prevented . LAW provides that a provisional care order shall be put before ORG which shall rule on whether the order shall be upheld pending the court 's judgment regarding the application for public care .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW states that the best interest of the young person shall be decisive when decisions are made under LAW .

According to LAW of LAW , ORG decides on the details of the care , in particular , how the care is to be arranged and where the young person is to live . Moreover , under section DATE , the council shall ensure that the young person 's need for contact with his or her parents or other guardians is met to the utmost possible extent . If necessary , the council may decide how this contact is to be arranged . In the preparatory works to LAW PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) , it is noted that the provisions on access restrictions are to be applied restrictively . ORG must have strong reasons to decide on access restrictions between a young person and his or her parents . However , it can happen that the parents intervene in the care in an inappropriate manner . Their personal situation , for instance serious abuse or a grave mental illness , may be such that they should not see their child for a limited period of time . Moreover , section CARDINAL gives ORG the possibility to decide to keep a young person 's place of residence secret from his or her parents . This should only be done in very exceptional cases ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) .

DATE . The care order and any access restrictions shall be reviewed DATE by the ORG pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act . The council 's decision in this respect can be appealed to the administrative courts ( section CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW states that , when public care is no longer needed , the ORG shall order its termination and make careful preparations for the young person 's reunification with his or her custodians .

According to LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ( Socialtjänstlagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ; hereafter the “ CARDINAL LAW ” ) , care outside a young person 's home shall be provided either in a family home or in a home for care and residence . Moreover , the care should be designed to promote the affinity between the young person and his or her relatives and others closely connected to him or her , as well as contact with his or her home surroundings .


CASE OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA

Preliminary objection rejected;Violation of Art. 11;Not necessary to examine under Art. 10;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Ján Šikuta;Javier Borrego Borrego;Josep Casadevall;Matti Pellonpää;Nicolas Bratza;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant party , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , is a parliamentary political party in GPE which was in opposition at the time of the events .

Towards DATE , the NORP government made public its intention to make the study of the NORP language compulsory in schools for children aged seven and over .

This initiative prompted vehement criticism from the opposition and generated a heated public debate .

On DATE the parliamentary group of the ORG informed ORG of its intention to hold a meeting with its supporters on DATE , in FAC , in front of the government buildings . It stated that the meeting would relate to the introduction of the compulsory study of NORP in schools . It relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) which , according to the ORG , did not require members of parliament to obtain prior authorisation for meetings with their supporters .

By a decision of DATE , ORG classified the gathering to be held on DATE as a “ demonstration ” within the meaning of sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and authorised the parliamentary group of the ORG to hold it in FAC . It did not give any reasons for the change of location .

Later , on DATE , ORG addressed a letter to ORG , informing it that there was a discrepancy between the provisions of the Status of Members of Parliament Act and those of LAW and that it did not know which to apply . It stated , inter alia , that a number of reputable lawyers supported the idea that the ORG members of parliament had the right to hold meetings with their supporters in ORG without obtaining prior authorisation , in accordance with the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Status of Members of Parliament Act . It cited in that respect the opinion of an ombudsman who considered that , since section CARDINAL of the Status of Members of LAW proclaimed the right of MPs to raise demands on the spot for action to remedy a breach of the law , the ORG members of parliament were entitled to raise their demands for the cessation of the alleged breaches concerning the introduction of compulsory NORP lessons in front of the government building , as it also housed ORG . Accordingly , ORG requested ORG to ask ORG for an official interpretation of the legislation in question .

On DATE ORG issued a decision which stated , inter alia :

“ Having regard to the fact that the provisions of the domestic legislation are contradictory in respect of the demonstrations organised by the ORG and that the opinions of legal experts are contradictory , and bearing in mind the considerable social impact of a possible decision regarding the matter and the consequences it might entail , ORG has formally requested ORG to ask ORG for an official and urgent interpretation of the relevant legislation . ... ORG decision of DATE is hereby suspended until ORG has given its official interpretation . ”

In the meantime , on DATE , the parliamentary group of the ORG held a gathering in FAC , in front of government headquarters . It also held gatherings on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The ORG informed ORG in advance of each gathering ; however , it did not seek authorisation in accordance with LAW .

On DATE ORG issued an official warning to the ORG in accordance with LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated , inter alia , that the ORG had breached the provisions of LAW by organising demonstrations in FAC on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , notwithstanding the authorisation issued by ORG , which only gave permission for a demonstration on DATE in FAC . It called for an immediate halt to the gatherings , which it considered to be illegal and unconstitutional and which it claimed were not meetings with voters within the meaning of the Status of Members of LAW , but demonstrations falling under LAW . It asked the ORG for a written explanation within DATE and warned that , if it failed to comply with the warning , the ORG would impose a temporary ban ( suspendarea activităţii ) on the party 's activities in accordance with LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the President of the ORG wrote a letter to ORG in which he stated that the gatherings had not been organised by the ORG but by members of its parliamentary group , and that it was therefore the members concerned who were liable , and not the party . He also relied on LAW , arguing that it was a very specific LAW , applicable to meetings between members of parliament and voters , while LAW was general in nature . He finally submitted that the threatened ban on the party 's activities would amount to a political measure taken by ORG in order to repress the opposition .

On DATE ORG issued a decision imposing a DATE ban on the ORG 's activities , in accordance with LAW ORG .

The measure was imposed on the basis of the organisation by the ORG of unauthorised demonstrations on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

The Ministry of Justice dismissed the ORG leader 's argument that the party could not be held liable . It stated , inter alia , that the gatherings organised by the ORG on the above dates had in fact been demonstrations and marches and therefore fell within the scope of LAW rather than the Status of Members of LAW as the ORG had claimed .

According to the decision , the ORG had breached the provisions of sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW by not obtaining prior authorisation from ORG to stage demonstrations and by blocking the public highway .

The participation of minors in the ORG demonstrations had been in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and section CARDINAL(g ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The ORG 's actions also disclosed a violation of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Parties and other ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Status of Members of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The use of such slogans as “ I 'd rather be dead than a NORP ” ( PERSON decât NORP ) could be interpreted as a call to public violence and an act undermining the legal and constitutional order .

On DATE the ORG challenged the decision of ORG arguing , inter alia , that the gatherings had been meetings with voters within the meaning of the Status of Members of Parliament Act , and not assemblies falling within the scope of LAW .

On DATE ORG issued a decision lifting the temporary ban imposed on the ORG 's activities . It stressed that the ORG had breached all the laws mentioned in the decision of DATE and that the temporary ban had been necessary and justified . However , following an inquiry by the Secretary General of ORG under LAW , and having regard to the forthcoming local elections , the ORG was authorised to resume its activities . The decision of DATE did not , however , set aside the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG found in favour of ORG and ruled that the decision of DATE had been lawful . It dismissed the ORG 's argument that the party could not be held liable for the actions of its members , namely its parliamentary group . It found that the gatherings organised by the ORG had in fact been demonstrations , meetings and marches which fell under the provisions of LAW , and not meetings with voters . Even assuming that the gatherings had been intended as meetings with voters , they had gradually taken on the nature of demonstrations and , accordingly , the ORG needed authorisation in order to organise them . It also stated that , as a result of the demonstrations , the public transport company had suffered losses of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of QUANTITY ( ORG ) at the time ) . The participation of minors in the demonstrations had been in breach of LAW , ORG and LAW .

The ORG lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG , relying , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE a panel of ORG delivered its judgment , in which it dismissed the appeal lodged by the ORG . It endorsed the arguments of ORG and found , inter alia , that since the demonstrations organised by the ORG had been illegal , the sanction imposed on it had not been disproportionate . It also stated that in any event the decision of ORG had not had any negative effects on the ORG since it had not been enforced , the ORG 's accounts had not been frozen and the party could continue its activities unhindered .

ORG did not reply to ORG request of DATE for interpretation of the law and did not address any request to ORG . However , on DATE the government lodged an application with ORG asking it , inter alia , to declare the demonstrations organised by the ORG illegal and to order their cessation .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the government and declared the gatherings illegal . It stated , inter alia :

“ Even if one could accept that the ORG had the initial intention of holding meetings with its supporters , those meetings later took on the character of demonstrations , marches , processions and picketing , which fall under the provisions of LAW . In these circumstances , the leaders of the ORG were required to comply with the provisions of LAW ... ”

The ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and the judgment of DATE became final .

In the course of the present proceedings before ORG , the Government submitted a video with images of gatherings held by the ORG deputies on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE . The gatherings were held in FAC , in a pedestrian area , in front of the government buildings . The participants appeared to number CARDINAL and included people of different ages varying from schoolchildren to pensioners . According to the time displayed on the images , the gatherings commenced at TIME and lasted for TIME . Different personalities made speeches critical of the ruling ORG , the government and its policy . It appears from the video that traffic was not disrupted as a result of the gatherings held on those dates , and no signs of violence can be seen . “ The ORG 's Anthem ” ( PERSON DATE a song that originated in the DATE GPE student demonstrations ) was played frequently . The chorus of the song had the following wording :

“ I 'd rather be a slacker than a traitor ( PERSON haimana , decât trădător )

I 'd rather be a hooligan than a dictator ( PERSON huligan , decât dictator )

I 'd rather be a layabout than an activist ( PERSON , decât activist )

I 'd rather be dead than a NORP ( PERSON , decât NORP ) . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Denial and defamation of the ORG and of the people , incitement to war of aggression , incitement to hatred on ethnic , racial or religious grounds , incitement to discrimination , territorial separatism or public violence , as well as other acts undermining the constitutional order shall be forbidden and shall be punishable under the law . ”

The relevant provisions of the Status of Members of Parliament Act of DATE provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Members of parliament shall be obliged strictly to observe the LAW , the laws and the rules of morality and ethics .

( CARDINAL ) NORP Members of parliament shall have a duty to be dependable and to contribute by their own example to the consolidation of ORG discipline , the fulfilment of civil obligations , the protection of human rights and the observance of the law .

( CARDINAL ) Alleged breaches of the rules of ethics by members of parliament shall be examined by ORG , Appointments and ORG . ”

“ Local authorities shall provide members of parliament with all necessary assistance for the organisation of their work with voters . They shall place premises at their disposal for meetings with voters . ”

On DATE section CARDINAL ) was amended as follows :

“ Local authorities shall provide members of parliament with the necessary assistance for the organisation of their work with voters . For this purpose , they [ the local authorities ] shall ensure access to buildings or other public places , provide equipment and any necessary information and inform voters in good time about the place and the time of meetings with members of parliament . ”

On DATE a new section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was introduced :

“ Members of parliament shall have the right to organise demonstrations , meetings , processions and other peaceful gatherings in accordance with LAW . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Members of parliament , in their capacity as representatives of the supreme legislative power , shall have the right to raise demands on the spot for action to remedy a breach of the law ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ Assemblies may be conducted only after the organisers have notified the local council . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG shall be conducted peacefully , without any sort of weapons , and shall ensure the protection of participants and the environment , without impeding the normal use of public highways , road traffic and the operation of economic undertakings and without degenerating into acts of violence capable of endangering the public order and the physical integrity and life of persons or their property . ”

On DATE the following provision was added to the section :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Teachers or other school staff members shall not involve students in unauthorised assemblies . ”

“ Assemblies shall be suspended in the following circumstances :

( a ) denial and defamation of the ORG and of the people ;

( b ) incitement to war of aggression and incitement to hatred on ethnic , racial or religious grounds ;

( c ) incitement to discrimination , territorial separatism or public violence ;

( d ) acts that undermine the constitutional order . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG may be conducted in squares , streets , parks and other public places in cities , towns and villages , and also in public buildings .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be forbidden to conduct an assembly in the buildings of the public authorities , the local authorities , prosecutors ' offices , the courts or companies with armed security .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be forbidden to conduct assemblies :

( a ) within QUANTITY of the parliament building , the residence of the President of GPE , the seat of the government , ORG and ORG ;

( b ) within QUANTITY of the buildings of the central administrative authority , the local public authorities , courts , prosecutors ' offices , police stations , prisons and social rehabilitation institutions , military installations , railway stations , airports , hospitals , companies which use dangerous equipment and machines , and diplomatic institutions .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON access to the premises of the institutions listed in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be guaranteed .

( CARDINAL ) The local public authorities may , if the organisers agree , establish places or buildings for permanent assemblies . ”

“ The date and time of the assembly shall be agreed by the organiser and the local council of the city , town or village . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Not DATE prior to the date of the assembly , the organiser shall submit a notification to ORG , a specimen of which is set out in the annex which forms an integral part of this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The prior notification shall indicate :

( a ) the name of the organiser of the assembly and the aim of the assembly ;

( b ) the date , starting time and finishing time of the assembly ;

( c ) the location of the assembly and the access and return routes ;

( d ) the manner in which the assembly is to take place ;

( e ) the approximate number of participants ;

( f ) the persons who are to ensure and answer for the sound conduct of the assembly ;

( g ) the services the organiser of the assembly asks ORG to provide .

( CARDINAL ) If the situation so requires , ORG may alter certain aspects of the prior notification with the agreement of the organiser of the assembly . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) When the prior notification is considered at an ordinary or extraordinary meeting of ORG , the discussion shall deal with the form , timetable , location and other conditions for the conduct of the assembly and the decision taken shall take account of the specific situation . ”

The relevant parts of the Parties and other ORG of DATE provide :

“ ... In the event that breaches of the statute or of the law are discovered in the activities of a party or a socio - political organisation , ORG shall warn its leaders in writing , requesting that the breaches be remedied within a fixed time - limit . ”

“ ORG shall impose a temporary ban on the activities of a party or socio - political organisation which breaches the provisions of the LAW or those of the present LAW , or does not comply with a warning . ”

On DATE , this paragraph was amended as follows :

“ ORG shall impose a temporary ban on the activities of a party or socio - political organisation which breaches the provisions of the LAW .

In this case , ORG shall inform the party 's leadership in writing of the breaches of the law which have taken place and will set a time - limit for action to remedy them .

During electoral campaigns the activities of parties and other socio - political organisations may be suspended only by ORG .

During the temporary ban , it shall be forbidden for the party to use the mass media , to disseminate propaganda and publicity , to carry out bank transactions or other operations in respect of its assets and to participate in elections .

Once all the breaches of the law have been remedied , the party shall inform ORG , which shall lift the temporary ban within DATE .

The activities of the party or other socio - political organisation may be suspended for a period DATE . If the breaches of the law are not remedied its activities may be suspended for DATE . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . DATE States Parties recognise the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly .

No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a NORP society in the interests of national security or public safety , public order ( ordre public ) , the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . ”

The relevant parts of ORG of DATE provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Children shall have the right to membership of non - governmental organisations in accordance with the law .

( CARDINAL ) The ORG must provide children 's non - governmental organisations with financial support , place LOC at their disposal and provide them with fiscal incentives .

( CARDINAL ) The involvement of children in politics and their membership of political parties shall be forbidden . ”

NORP The relevant parts of LAW of DATE state :

“ It shall be the duty of teachers :

( g ) not to involve children in street actions ( meetings , demonstrations , picketing , etc . ) . ”

The relevant part of LAW DATE reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The organisation and holding of an assembly without prior notification to ORG or without authorisation from the ORG , or in breach of the conditions ( manner , place , time ) concerning the conduct of meetings indicated in the authorisation shall be punishable by a fine to be imposed on the organisers ( leaders ) of the assembly in an amount equal to between CARDINAL and CARDINAL times the minimum DATE wage . ...

Active participation in an assembly referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of the present Article shall be punishable by a fine in an amount between MDL CARDINAL and MDL CARDINAL . ”

On DATE the following provision was added to the Code :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The involvement of children in unauthorised assemblies shall be punishable by a fine of between MDL CARDINAL and MDL CARDINAL . ”


Violation of Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE she took her daughter 's son to a doctor . The boy was DATE at the time .

According to the doctor 's report , the applicant said that she had noticed a bruise on the boy 's back which might have been caused by a blow , and that his behaviour had been abnormal since he had visited his father , PERSON applicant had strong suspicions that the injuries were consistent with physical violence . Furthermore , it was written in the report that the applicant had informed the doctor that the boy had said that the bruise had been caused by a punch . The applicant further stated that in DATE she had noticed signs of violence for the first time , but that T. had explained that the boy had fallen down the stairs . The doctor wrote in his report that the bruise noted on the boy 's back was consistent with a punch , thereby supporting the boy 's account , given also to the doctor , that he had been hit by his father .

DATE , the doctor reported the alleged violence to the child welfare authorities , although the applicant had objected to a report being made .

On DATE T. requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence by alleging that he had hit his son . He maintained that he had never struck the boy . On DATE he further requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence , such as deprivation of liberty , by taking the boy to a doctor .

On DATE the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant for defamation without better knowledge ( ei vastoin parempaa tietoa tehty herjaus , smädelse dock icke emot bättre vetande ) . According to the charge , the applicant had given information to the doctor implying that T. had struck his son . The doctor had been given to understand that T. had struck the boy on several occasions , most recently during DATE . The applicant did not have reasonable grounds to support her allegation . On DATE T. joined the proceedings and claimed compensation from the applicant for non - pecuniary damage amounting to MONEY ( ORG , CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and reimbursement of his legal expenses .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) held an oral hearing . In its judgment the court held that it remained unclear whether the applicant had implied that the boy had been hit by his father or whether the doctor 's report merely recorded his own impression based on his discussion with the applicant and the child . Applying the principle in dubio pro reo , the court rejected the charge . The presiding judge , however , dissented , finding the applicant guilty of defamation without better knowledge . She noted that , taking the facts as presented , there were no reasonable grounds to support the belief that ORG had struck the boy . She further found that the boy 's own statement could not as such be considered a reasonable ground , especially given the fact that it was not known whether the applicant had discussed the bruise with him before visiting the doctor .

T. appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . On DATE , after an oral hearing , ORG overturned ORG judgment and convicted the applicant of defamation committed without better knowledge . No fines or other penalties were imposed , but the applicant was ordered to pay compensation for non - pecuniary damage amounting to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and legal costs of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . It reasoned :

“ At the hearing [ the applicant ] and [ the doctor ] have essentially given the same account of the events as before ORG . [ The applicant ] has , however , stated that having noticed the bruise on the child 's back on TIME before the visit to the doctor 's , she asked the boy where it had come from and he said that his father had hit him .

According to the doctor , the applicant had provided the preliminary data , which he had first written down on paper . Later they had been recorded in the medical report based on his dictation . He had dictated the information immediately after the applicant and the child had left the room . The report did not contain any conclusions reached by the doctor himself .

On the basis of the doctor 's testimony and the case record , it has been proved that the applicant intentionally , albeit without better knowledge , said that [ the father ] was guilty of having struck his DATE son in such a way that she in fact gave the doctor to understand that the father had struck his son during DATE preceding DATE . However , ORG finds that it has not been shown that the applicant gave the doctor to understand that the father had struck his son at other times .

As described above , the applicant had discussed the bruise with the boy . The boy may also have heard the applicant make her preliminary statement at the doctor 's before the doctor spoke to him . Having regard to this and the boy 's age , the mere fact that he told the doctor that his father had hit him can not be considered to be significant enough to constitute reasonable grounds for the allegation . Nor has the applicant presented any other such reasons for the allegation on the basis of which she could be considered to have had reasonable cause to believe her insinuation to be true .

On the above grounds , ORG considers that the applicant is guilty of defamation without better knowledge .

According to the doctor , the applicant had been worried about the child 's condition and he considered that the visit had been justified . Having regard to the circumstances , it was forgivable that the applicant , in whose care the child had been , had not thoroughly weighed what she had told the doctor . For these reasons ORG does not impose a sentence , in accordance with LAW , LAW , subsection QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] . ”

The applicant sought leave to appeal from ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) . She argued that the right to freedom of expression was violated if a person could not rely on the account of a child who had visible signs of injury or discuss his or her own impressions of the facts with a doctor , who was bound by professional secrecy , without being afraid of later being found guilty of defamation .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL , which took effect on CARDINAL DATE and remained in force until DATE ) of LAW ( Suomen Hallitusmuoto , ORG ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , provided :

“ Everyone has freedom of expression . Freedom of expression entails the right to express , disseminate and receive information , opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone . More detailed provisions on the exercise of freedom of expression are laid down by an Act . Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an LAW . ”

The same provision appears in LAW ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) corresponded to LAW , which provides that everyone 's right to private life is guaranteed .

Chapter CARDINAL , article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as in force until DATE ) , provided that a person alleging , albeit not contrary to his or her better knowledge , that someone had committed an offence was to be convicted of defamation and sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum term of DATE , unless he or she could show reasonable grounds for the allegation .

For the conduct to be intentional , the offender had to be aware of the fact that the defamatory allegations might subject the person concerned to contempt , or harm his or her profession or career . In cases where the offender did not understand the defamatory nature of the conduct , it has not been considered intentional , but the fact that the offender has been mistaken about the truth of the defamatory allegation has not altered the intentional nature of his or her conduct . Only in cases where the offender has been able adequately to prove the truth of his or her allegations has it been possible to free him or her from liability .

In CARDINAL of its precedents ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , ORG held that a person had committed defamation when she had failed to verify the truthfulness of the information she had provided when requesting a criminal investigation by the police and reporting to the social welfare authorities under LAW her suspicion that another person had committed sexual and other offences .

Under the terms of LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadeståndslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , damages may be awarded for the distress arising from an offence against someone 's liberty , honour or domestic peace or from another comparable offence .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( lastensuojelulaki ; barnskyddslagen , Act no . DATE ) , in force until DATE , provided that if , in the course of his or her activities , an employee or elected official in health care , social welfare , education , the police or the church learned about a child in apparent need of family - oriented or individual child welfare measures , he or she had to notify the social welfare board without delay . The provision has been interpreted to mean that any confidentiality obligation is superseded by the duty to notify .

The wording “ apparent need of child welfare measures ” referred to section CARDINAL , which set a clearly lower threshold for child welfare measures than the threshold set in LAW for taking a child into public care . Even a less than serious risk to the child 's health or development warrants notification to the social welfare board . The word “ apparent ” is used in order to encourage notifications also in cases where there exists no full evidence of or certainty about the existence of such a risk . When a child welfare official receives notification , he or she must verify the facts and assess whether support measures are needed . The wording has left room for interpretation of how certain the notifier must be of the child 's need for child welfare measures . In particular , there has been uncertainty about whether the mere suspicion of such a need suffices for notifying the authorities .

According to the Government PERSON ( HE PERSON ) for the enactment of the new LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE ) , in order to guarantee children 's safety the threshold for making a child welfare notification under LAW should not be excessively high . If a person considering making such a notification has difficulties in assessing whether his or her concern about the child is sufficient to justify notifying the authorities , he or she may , if necessary , consult the social welfare authorities , for instance , without communicating the child 's name to them . The provision expressly provides that any confidentiality obligation is superseded by the duty to notify . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the child welfare authorities must report to the police any case where there is good reason to suspect that a sex offence , homicide or bodily injury has been committed on a child in the environment in which he or she was growing up and the suspected offence carries a maximum penalty of DATE imprisonment .

As a rule , the child concerned is entitled to be informed of the notifier 's identity . In practice , however , cases exist where disclosure of the identity of a private person making such a notification would be particularly harmful to the child 's best interests or the notifier 's safety , for example . Authorities need not provide a party with information on identity if the conditions mentioned in LAW of ORG ( laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta ; lagen om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet ; Act no . CARDINAL ) are fulfilled : a party shall not have the right of access to a document if such access would be contrary to a very important public interest , the interest of a minor or some other very important private interest . According to LAW ( HE PERSON ) , the best interests of a child may justify protecting the notifier 's identity on the basis of an overall consideration of the circumstances of each individual case . As an example , the Government PERSON mentions the situation where the notifier is a person close to the child , for instance a grandparent , and to disclose his or her identity would break the child 's relationship with an adult important to his or her welfare . Disclosure of the notifier 's identity may , in individual cases , also be in conflict with the public interest if providing the information might defeat the purpose of child welfare measures .

In DATE the Ombudsman for Children ( lapsivaltuutettu , barnombudsmannen ) took up her duties . The ORG is entrusted with the task of promoting the best interests and rights of the child in general administration , social policy and legislation . The ORG may issue recommendations , guidelines and advice but she can not receive individual complaints . The ORG is an independent authority who works in liaison with ORG and Health ( sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö , social- och hälsovårdsministeriet ) . ORG ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) retains her mandate regarding children and continues to act on individual complaints addressed to her .

According to LAW ( DATE ; yleissopimus lapsen oikeuksista , konventionen om barnens rättigheter ; SopS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) DATE ratified by all members of ORG provides :

“ CARDINAL . DATE States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative , administrative , social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence , injury or abuse , neglect or negligent treatment , maltreatment or exploitation , including sexual abuse , while in the care of parent(s ) , legal guardian(s ) or any other person who has the care of the child .

Such protective measures should , as appropriate , include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child , as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification , reporting , referral , investigation , treatment and follow - up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore , and , as appropriate , for judicial involvement . ”

NORP In its concluding observations ( CRC / C/CARDINAL/Add . CARDINAL ) of DATE on the third periodic report of GPE ( ORG / C/CARDINAL/Add.CARDINAL ) ORG on the Rights of the PERSON shared the concern of ORG that violence against children and sexual abuse within families were among the most serious obstacles to the full implementation of children 's rights in GPE . In the light of LAW , the ORG recommended that GPE , inter alia , strengthen awareness - raising and education campaigns with the involvement of children in order to prevent and combat all forms of child abuse and also strengthen measures to encourage reporting of instances of child abuse , including for children in alternative care , and to prosecute the perpetrators of these acts .


The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud . Subsequently , additional charges were brought against the applicant ( unlawful acquisition of a vehicle , money laundering and forging documents ) . Since DATE , he has remained in detention on remand .

Following the completion of the pre - trial investigation , on DATE the case was transferred to LOC , which on DATE delivered a judgment .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to ORG , before which the proceedings are still pending .

According to the Government , in the course of the proceedings CARDINAL witnesses and QUANTITY victims were interrogated , questioned or confronted , some of them repeatedly . This took the authorities DATE in total . CARDINAL forensic examinations were ordered and lasted for DATE in total . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned due to the applicant ’s and CARDINAL other co - defendants’ representatives’ , GPE and witnesses’ failure to appear . The applicant disagreed stating that his representative had not been informed of the hearings which he had not attended . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned on the applicant ’s request . CARDINAL further hearings were adjourned , mainly because the defendants were not escorted to the court , due to the ORG or prosecutor ’s failure to appear or because the judge was absent . On several occasions the courts issued compulsory summonses for witnesses .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;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 injured in a car accident . She had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE she made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment .

On DATE the court corrected the typos and miscalculations in the judgment . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal and raised the amount of damages awarded .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) and requested the second - instance court to correct its judgment .

On DATE the second - instance court corrected its judgment at the request of the applicant .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded .