Information Note on the Court’s case-law
March 1988
Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) - 10465/83
Judgment 24.3.1988
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Taking into public care of applicants' three children: no violation
Manner of implementation of this measure: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.SCOPE OF ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
Applicants' general complaints concerning Swedish child-care law and practice of Swedish courts: not the Court's task to effect review in abstracto.
Government's plea that Court should not deal with certain later decisions of Swedish authorities not examined in Commission's admissibility decision or in respect of which domestic remedies not exhausted at date thereof: raised out of time – decisions constituted continuation of facts underlying complaints declared admissible.
Conclusion: plea rejected (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
Violations alleged to have arisen from decision to take children into care, manner of its implementation and refusals to terminate care.
Measures at issue amounted to interferences with applicants' right to respect for family life.
Having regard to subject-matter and safeguards provided against arbitrary interference, relevant Swedish legislation, though rather general in terms and conferring wide discretion, was formulated with sufficient precision for interferences to be regarded as "in accordance with the law".
Interferences had legitimate aims of protecting health or morals and protecting the rights and freedoms of others (the children).
"Necessary in a democratic society"
(a)Established case-law recalled: Court's review not limited to ascertaining whether State acted reasonably, carefully and in good faith – Court must examine impugned decisions in light of case as a whole and determine whether justified by "relevant and sufficient" reasons.
(b)The taking into, and the refusals to terminate, care
– Applicants had been involved in decision-making process, seen as a whole, to degree sufficient to provide requisite protection of their interests.
– Decisions to take children into care and to refuse applicants' requests for termination thereof were based on social reports supported by statements from persons well acquainted with background – decisions confirmed by courts which able to form own impression of case and whose judgments not reversed on appeal – Swedish authorities reasonably entitled, having regard to their margin of appreciation, to think the taking into care was necessary – also had sufficient reasons for thinking the care decision had to remain in force.
Conclusion: no violation (ten votes to five).
(c)Implementation of the care decision
Not established that quality of the care given to the children was not satisfactory – separation of the children, placement of two of them at long distance from applicants' home and restrictions on latter's visits impeded easy and regular access by members of the family to each other and thus ran counter to ultimate aim of its reunification – in these respects measures taken in implementation of care decision, which partly prompted by administrative difficulties, were not supported by sufficient reasons justifying them as proportionate to legitimate aim pursued – therefore not "necessary".
Conclusion: violation (twelve votes to three).
III.ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
Allegations of "inhuman treatment": matters relied on by applicants either not established or did not constitute such treatment.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
Claim that applicants had not received a "fair hearing" before domestic courts: not established, as regards either proceedings in general or specific incidents (hearing of an expert and manner of taking evidence).
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
V.ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8
Assertion that interferences with applicants' rights were based on their "social origin" and hence discriminatory: not substantiated.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
VI.ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Allegation of breach by reason of applicants' inability to influence children's education and placement of one of them with family belonging to a religious denomination: not established on the facts.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
VII.ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Claim that applicants had no remedy in respect of breach of Protocol allegedly resulting from one child's being given religious upbringing: various "effective" remedies were, in fact, available.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
VIII.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damage occasioned by those aspects of implementation of the care decision that gave rise to breach of Article 8.
B.Claim for reimbursement of legal fees and expenses accepted, but only in part.
Conclusion: Sweden to pay specified sums to applicants (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes