PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 35141/06) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swedish national, Ms Eleonor Levin (“the applicant”), on 21 August 2006.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms B. Wallman, a lawyer practising in Örebro. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Sjöberg, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged a breach of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the contact restrictions following the taking into public care of her three children.

On 20 January 2009 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the contact restrictions to the Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

On 1 February 2011 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1 of the Rules of Court) and the above application was assigned to the newly composed Fifth Section.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Norway.

A. Background and taking into public care

The applicant is the mother of three children, T. born in October 1999, S. born in March 2001 and D. born in November 2002. In March 2003, the applicant separated from the children’s father, B., and she was eventually granted sole custody of the children, while B. was granted contact rights. The applicant married J. in November 2004.

The applicant and her children have been known to the social services since 2002 when a first investigation into their home environment was carried out. During March and April 2005, the personnel at the children’s day care centre felt that the applicant was distracted and stressed and the children were hungry and dirty when they arrived at day care in the mornings and were behaving in a wild and hyperactive manner. In view of this, they reported the situation to the social services in Skellefteå. In March the applicant herself contacted the Child and Youth Psychiatric Clinic (Barn- och ungdomspsykiatrin; hereafter “BUP”) for help, as she considered the situation to be chaotic and she needed help for her son, S., who she claimed destroyed everything at home. BUP reported the family’s situation to the social services.

On 3 May 2005 the applicant contacted BUP in a state of despair and, in response, a social emergency unit (social beredskap) went to the applicant’s home, accompanied by police and a chief physician from the adult psychiatric clinic. The authorities found the interior of the home completely destitute; there was hardly any furniture and there was no electricity or running water. The applicant was in a confused state and blamed the mess in the house on S. The social emergency unit decided immediately to place the children, together with the applicant, in a temporary family home (jourfamiljehem)0. On the following day, the applicant was committed to compulsory psychiatric care in accordance with the Act on Compulsory Psychiatric Care (Lagen om psykiatrisk tvångsvård, 1991:1128). The applicant claimed that she was not ill but agreed to the placement of the children in the temporary family home. A week later, she was released from psychiatric care and returned to her home.

During the summer of 2005 the applicant had frequent contact with the social services. However, she felt misunderstood and harassed by the authorities and wanted to bring her two daughters, T. and D., home. As the social services insisted that the situation was not stable enough for the girls to return to the applicant, she withdrew her consent to their voluntary placement. Hence, the Social Council (socialnämnden) in Skellefteå decided to take T. and D. into public care immediately on a provisional basis, pursuant to section 6 of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (Lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga, 1990:52; hereafter “the 1990 Act”). The council considered that the measure was necessary in order to protect the children. It also noted that there had been chaos every time the applicant had met with the children during the summer or when she had appeared, often unannounced, at their day care centre, leaving them upset and sad.

The applicant, who was represented by legal counsel, opposed the measure but, on 31 August 2005, the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Västerbotten confirmed the decision of the Social Council.

On 19 September 2005 the Social Council applied to the County Administrative Court for a permanent care order in respect of all three children, in accordance with section 2 of the 1990 Act. The council maintained that the applicant had shown a serious lack of ability to care for her children. It submitted a comprehensive investigation report into the family’s situation in support of its request according to which all three children had worn nappies when they arrived at the temporary family home, although T. only at night, and they had been dirty and had an endless appetite. Moreover, T. had no limits towards adults and wanted to control everything and everyone around her. S. had nightmares and had been afraid of sudden movements. He acted in a very stressed and anxious manner when his mother was present. D. had been late in her speech and motor development. The applicant had not been able to set limits for her children and the situation when they met had always become out of control.

The applicant disputed the measure and claimed that she was capable of caring for her children, who suffered from being separated from her.

By judgment of 19 October 2005, after having held an oral hearing, the County Administrative Court granted a permanent care order in respect of each of the three children. It found that, on the basis of all the material in the case, it had been shown that the applicant lacked the ability to care for her children, which had already somewhat impaired their health and development, and that there was a serious risk of further damage unless they were given proper care. Since the applicant did not agree to voluntary care, it was necessary to take the children into public care on a permanent basis.

The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Sundsvall. She had realised that it was not S., but her husband J., who had been responsible for all the destruction in their home. J. had admitted this and they had divorced. However, she did not consider that the children had suffered from this error, although she felt sorry for S. and would have liked to talk to him about it.

The Social Council contested the appeal. In its view, the children’s behaviour showed that their development had already been harmed and, moreover, the applicant had no insight into her problems and had difficulties in interacting with her children.

On 9 January 2006 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in full. In its opinion it was evident that the children had not received proper care at home. Moreover, the applicant had shown signs of mental ill-health and had behaved in an unbalanced manner. Thus there had been a real risk of damage to the children’s health and development. Furthermore, although the court acknowledged that the situation had improved in that the house had been renovated and the applicant had divorced J., it found that the situation was far from being stable, having regard to the serious flaws which had existed, the uncertainty as to whether they still existed and the children’s need for care.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) which, on 23 February 2006, refused leave to appeal.

B. Contact restrictions

Following the granting of the public care order in August 2005, the applicant had contact rights to visit T. for one hour, once every other week, and spoke with her on the telephone once a week. She met S. once every third week in the presence of the social services and she had contact rights to visit D. for one hour every week. In May 2006 the applicant moved to live with her sister in Göteborg, located approximately 1,100 km from Skellefteå, and as a result she travelled to Skellefteå to see her children roughly once a month.

In October 2005, the children were placed in three different family homes, all within approximately 50 km of Skellefteå, as one family was not able to provide the care and support that each child needed. However, it was arranged for the children to meet each other approximately once a month to ensure continued good contact between them.

In November 2006 the applicant, through her legal counsel, requested the Social Council to allow her more time with her children as she felt that the children were being deprived of contact with her.

On 11 December 2006 the Social Council decided to restrict the applicant’s contact rights to all three children. It first noted that the children’s father, B., had also requested contact rights to the children and that his contact rights had to be taken into account when deciding on the frequency of the applicant’s contact rights, balanced against the best interests of the children. Thus, according to the decision, each parent should meet with the children once every three months in a neutral environment where the family home parents and the social worker responsible for the file should be present. This meant that the applicant would meet her children once every six months.

The decision was based on an investigation carried out by the Social Council, in consultation with BUP, into the children’s situation. It was finalised on 1 December 2006 and concluded, inter alia, the following. All three children had suffered severe harm to their health and development because of the deficiencies in the applicant’s ability to care for them. They were vulnerable and sensitive to change. However, since the permanent care order, T. had slowly become more calm and balanced and had started to learn how to play. She and the applicant had been alone during their meetings and had done various things such as going to the playground, the swimming pool or a restaurant. T. had been very tired after the meetings and she had slept badly and wet her bed. After telephone conversations with the applicant, T. had also been anxious and sad. As regards S., he had become calmer and more relaxed since placed in the family home. He still had difficulties sleeping and suffered from stomach pains and vomiting before and after contact with the applicant, despite the meetings having been very structured and held in the presence of the family home father. S. showed clear signs of fear of his mother and he had expressed a fear that she would come and fetch him. Turning to D., it was observed that she had met with the applicant and that they had usually been alone, playing together. After contact with the applicant, D. used to be worried about things the applicant had told her and she regressed somewhat in her development for a few days after each meeting, wetting her bed and having difficulty sleeping. The Social Council concluded in its investigation report that the children had a right to contact with their mother but that their best interests required that the contact be limited in order to ensure their secure and positive development.

The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court and requested that she be granted contact rights to her children much more often than only twice a year. She could see no reason for such restricted contact and found it to be contrary to the best interests of the children as they would forget their mother. They had lived with her until May 2005 and they had had a close and warm relationship. She agreed that the children should also see and get to know their father but considered that this should not limit her contact with them. Moreover, she referred to a custody report, dated 28 February 2005, which had been carried out in connection with the custody proceedings following the divorce from B. In the summary of the report it was stated, inter alia, that nothing had appeared to call into question the applicant’s ability as a parent to care for her three children and that personnel at the children’s day care centre had stated that the children seemed to receive the care they needed from the applicant.

The Social Council contested the appeal. It submitted that the children were currently in the process of developing and learning things that they had not had the opportunity to learn before and it was important that this process should not be interrupted, which was the effect of their contact with the applicant. Consultation had taken place with BUP, which agreed with the Social Council that contact restrictions were necessary in order to ensure a positive development for the children. Moreover, it noted that the last meeting between the applicant and her children, on 23 January 2007, had passed without incident, partly because eight adults had been present to ensure the children’s well-being.

On 2 April 2007 the County Administrative Court rejected the appeal. It noted that a supplementary custody report, dated 25 August 2005, stated that it was clear that there were major flaws in the applicant’s ability to care for her children. Thus, having regard to the fact that the children had been feeling ill and anxious in connection with and after their contacts with the applicant, and that they needed time to develop in peace in their family homes, the Social Council had been justified in restricting the applicant’s contact rights to her children to twice a year.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court of Appeal, maintaining her claims and adding that she wished to see her children at least once a month in order to ensure that they would not forget her. She felt that the family home parents had a negative attitude towards her and that this influenced the children.

On 11 October 2007, after having held an oral hearing, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in full. It noted that BUP had been consulted by the Social Council before its decision.

Upon further appeal by the applicant, the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal on 10 December 2007.

Every three months, the Social Council reconsidered the contact restrictions and decided to maintain the restrictions in place. It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against these until the council’s decision of 11 August 2008 which she appealed against to the County Administrative Court, requesting that her contact rights to her children be increased to one visit per month to begin with and, after three months, to spend one weekend a month with them alone. She stated, inter alia, that she had moved to Norway, found a job and was in a steady relationship with a new man, and thus, felt very well.

In its decision, the Social Council had observed that despite the applicant’s visits having been planned and very structured, the children had still had negative reactions before and after each meeting in the form of anxiety, stomach aches, bedwetting, becoming insecure and regressing in their development. It further noted that during the visit in December 2007, the applicant’s mother had also been present which had been a positive addition. She had expressed a wish to see her grandchildren once a year, to which the council agreed. It also noted that the applicant had sent postcards and letters to the children which they appreciated. As concerned the visits, the council observed that they were always very well planned and structured with the support of the family homes and that the applicant and the children played together, ate and talked. The family homes also showed photos and films from the children’s meetings and their activities.

On 14 November 2008 the court, after having held an oral hearing, decided to increase the applicant’s contact with her children to four times per year, for four hours each time. It noted that the limited contact had been in place for roughly two years and had contributed to the children developing positively during this time. Although it agreed with the Social Council that continued limitations on the applicant’s contact with her children were necessary due to the children’s needs, it noted that the applicant had not interfered in an inappropriate manner in the care of her children. Moreover, the last two times they had met had generally gone well. Therefore, the court found that with the support of the Social Council and the family homes during the meetings, these could be increased to four times per year for the applicant. In its view, this would provide the children with a good contact with their mother while not jeopardising their continued development.

The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal, maintaining that she wanted contact rights with her children during one weekend per month, without the presence of others, in order to ensure that she and the children would establish a good contact.

The Social Council contested the appeal and maintained the reasons set forth in its decision.

The Administrative Court of Appeal requested the Social Council to obtain the children’s point of view on increased contact with their mother. Consequently, the council met with the children individually but in the presence of their family home parents where they spoke about various things, including how they felt about seeing their mother more often. T. said that she did not want to meet her mother more than twice a year and that she did not want to be alone with her or stay with her. According to T., the meetings were very tiresome, demanding, she had a headache and could not concentrate in school before and after the meetings. She started crying and had a stomach ache during the conversation for which reason they had to cut it short. Following the conversation, she wet her bed at night, cried a lot and said that she was afraid. As for S., he did not want to talk about his mother. He reacted in a negative, frightened manner and almost started crying. He later said that he only wanted to see her once a year and that he did not want to be alone with her. It was noted that he was very anxious and afraid to meet his mother and had strong physical reactions both before and after the meetings, including stuttering, becoming aggressive and being afraid of physical contact. Turning to D. she said that she became tired when meeting her mother and siblings but that it was nice to dress up and eat good food. It was noted that D. was the most positive about the meetings with the applicant but that she did not want to meet with her alone. Moreover, the negative reactions that she had had during earlier meetings had improved somewhat.

In February 2009 the applicant voluntarily underwent a neuropsychological examination during two days at Stavanger University Hospital, upon request by the Social Council. The council wanted to know if the applicant suffered from a disorder or mental illness and, if so, what support she would need. The examination concluded that the applicant fulfilled the criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that was mainly inattentive in nature. It recommended supplementary examinations and made a number of proposals for supportive measures, including establishing fixed structures and routines in her daily life. It was also stressed that this specific impairment of her capabilities could hardly be sufficient to “disqualify her as a parent”.

On 7 May 2009 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in full. It concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the children to increase the applicant’s contact rights further than decided by the lower court, in particular due to the negative reactions of T. and S. before, during and after the meetings.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e1
001-109575_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
35141/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e2
001-109575_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Sweden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e3
001-109575_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e4
001-109575_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Ms Eleonor Levin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e5
001-109575_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
21 August 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e6
001-109575_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms B. Wallman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e7
001-109575_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Örebro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e3
001-109575_a8_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e8
001-109575_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Sjöberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e9
001-109575_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e10
001-109575_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e11
001-109575_a8_em12
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 February 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e12
001-109575_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1967
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e13
001-109575_a8_em14
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e15
001-109575_a8_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e17
001-109575_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e19
001-109575_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e20
001-109575_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
March 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e21
001-109575_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e21
001-109575_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e22
001-109575_a8_em24
PERSON
QUASI
J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e23
001-109575_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e24
001-109575_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e25
001-109575_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
March and April 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e26
001-109575_a8_em28
LOC
QUASI
Skellefteå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
Child and Youth Psychiatric Clinic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
001-109575_a8_em29
Barn- och ungdomspsykiatrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
001-109575_a8_em29
BUP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
BUP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e28
001-109575_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
3 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
BUP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
S.
HEALTH
insert
001-109575_a8_e29
001-109575_a8_em37
DEM
QUASI
compulsory psychiatric care
HEALTH
check
001-109575_a8_e30
001-109575_a8_em38
DEM
QUASI
Compulsory Psychiatric Care
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e31
001-109575_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e32
001-109575_a8_em42
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council (socialnämnden)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e26
001-109575_a8_em43
LOC
QUASI
Skellefteå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e33
001-109575_a8_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
31 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e34
001-109575_a8_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Court (länsrätten)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-109575_a8_e35
001-109575_a8_em48
LOC
QUASI
Västerbotten
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e37
001-109575_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e38
001-109575_a8_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em53
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em54
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em56
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e39
001-109575_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
19 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e38
001-109575_a8_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e40
001-109575_a8_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e41
001-109575_a8_em60
LOC
QUASI
Sundsvall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em61
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e22
001-109575_a8_em62
PERSON
QUASI
J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e22
001-109575_a8_em63
PERSON
QUASI
J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em64
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e42
001-109575_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
9 January 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e43
001-109575_a8_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e44
001-109575_a8_em68
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e45
001-109575_a8_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e46
001-109575_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em71
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e47
001-109575_a8_em72
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one hour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em73
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em74
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e47
001-109575_a8_em75
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one hour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e48
001-109575_a8_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e49
001-109575_a8_em77
LOC
QUASI
Göteborg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e50
001-109575_a8_em78
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
1,100 km
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e26
001-109575_a8_em79
LOC
QUASI
Skellefteå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e26
001-109575_a8_em80
LOC
QUASI
Skellefteå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e51
001-109575_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e52
001-109575_a8_em82
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
50 km
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e26
001-109575_a8_em83
LOC
QUASI
Skellefteå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e53
001-109575_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e54
001-109575_a8_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
11 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e21
001-109575_a8_em88
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e55
001-109575_a8_em89
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e56
001-109575_a8_em90
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
BUP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e57
001-109575_a8_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em94
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em95
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em96
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em97
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em98
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em99
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em100
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e38
001-109575_a8_em102
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e58
001-109575_a8_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e59
001-109575_a8_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e21
001-109575_a8_em105
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
BUP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e60
001-109575_a8_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
23 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e61
001-109575_a8_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
2 April 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e38
001-109575_a8_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e62
001-109575_a8_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
25 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em113
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e43
001-109575_a8_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e63
001-109575_a8_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
11 October 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e43
001-109575_a8_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e27
001-109575_a8_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
BUP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e64
001-109575_a8_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e65
001-109575_a8_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e55
001-109575_a8_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e66
001-109575_a8_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
11 August 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e38
001-109575_a8_em124
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e55
001-109575_a8_em125
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-109575_a8_e13
001-109575_a8_em126
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e67
001-109575_a8_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e68
001-109575_a8_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
14 November 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e69
001-109575_a8_em130
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-109575_a8_e70
001-109575_a8_em131
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em132
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e43
001-109575_a8_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e43
001-109575_a8_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em138
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em139
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em140
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em141
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e18
001-109575_a8_em142
PERSON
QUASI
D.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e71
001-109575_a8_em143
DATETIME
QUASI
February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e72
001-109575_a8_em144
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e73
001-109575_a8_em145
ORG
QUASI
Stavanger University Hospital
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e36
001-109575_a8_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Council
HEALTH
insert
001-109575_a8_e74
001-109575_a8_em147
DEM
QUASI
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e75
001-109575_a8_em148
DATETIME
QUASI
7 May 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e43
001-109575_a8_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-109575_a8_e14
001-109575_a8_em150
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-109575_a8_e16
001-109575_a8_em151
PERSON
QUASI
S.
Eleonor Levin
SWE
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Eleonor Levin