Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850515-1055483
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 06:18:17+00:00
Document Index: 39580604

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 30", "l'article 25", "l'article 41", "l'article 1", "l'article 2", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 3", "l'article 8", "l'article 2", "l'article 3", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 2", "l'article 2", "l'article 2"]

AMINOFF c. SUEDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche AMINOFF c. SUEDE
Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10554/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-05-15;10554.83 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) EGALITE DES ARMES, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-2) PRESOMPTION D'INNOCENCEParties : Demandeurs : AMINOFFDéfendeurs : SUEDETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10554/83
Eva AMINOFF v/SWEDE N Eva AMINOFF c/SUED E DECISION of 15 May 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 15 mai 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 8 of the Convention : Decision by local authority to remove a child from its adoptive mother and to place it with foster parents, preventing any conmcr between mother and child (Complaint declared adinissible) . Article 2 of the First Protocol : Decision by local authoritv to remove a child from its adoptive mother, who complains thai the child's subsequent education is not that which she wished it to have (Complaini declared admissible) . Article 8 de la Convention : DÃ©cision de l'autoritÃ© administrative d'enlever un enfant mineur Ã sa mÃ¨re adoptive et de le confier Ã des parents nourriciers, en emp@chanr tout contact entre la mÃ¨re et l'enfant (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 2 du Protocole additionnel : DÃ©cision de l'autoritÃ© administrative d'enlever un enfant mineur Ã sa mÃ¨re adoptive, laquelle se plaini que, dÃ¨s lors, l'Ã©ducation reÃ§ue par son fils a Ã©tÃ© diffÃ©rente de celle qu'elle dÃ©sirair lui faire donner (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable).
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows . The applicant is a Finnish citizen bom in 1919 and resident at Liding0 in Sweden . She has an adoptive son, Alexander, who was bom in March 1969 of Finnish parents . The applicant is represented before the Commission by Mr . Lennart Hane, a lawyer practising in Stockholm .
The case relates to (he taking into care of the applicant's son . 7he Swedish Legislafion on Child Welfare a)
The 1960 Acr on Child Welfare ( barnavdrdslagen )
Generally speaking, it is the responsibility of each municipality (at present there are 284) to promote a positive development for the young and, if need arises, to provide good conditions for their upbringing . This responsibility was under the 1960 Act carried out by a local board, the Child Welfare Board ( bamavdrdsnd mnden) . These boards consisted of lay members and were assisted by professional social workers . A Child Welfare Board was to intervene if a person, not yet eighteen years of age, was ntaltreated in his home or otherwise treated there in a manner endangering his bodily or mental health, or if his development was jeopardised because of the unfitness of his parents or other guardians responsible for his upbringing, or of their inability to raise the child (Section 25 a) .â¢ Inte rv ention might also take place where a person under the age of 20 needed corrective measures because of his criminal, immoral or otherwise asocial behaviour (Section 25 b) . The Child Welfare Board got information about abuse or bad conditions for children from various officials, who frequently came into contact with children, such as social workers, doctors, nurses and teachers, but also through private citizens, who had noticed maltreatment of children . The Board was also required to act e.r officio . Upon information of a possible case of maltreatment, the Board had (o car ry out an investigation without delay . This investigation had to be comprehensive and include inte rv iews with persons who could supply information, reports from medical examinations, and repons from visits to the child's home . The Board had to try to remedy the situation by preventive measures ( fdrebyggande )qtgÃ«rder) before resorting to public care . Four such preventive measures were enumerated in the 1960 Act : 1) suppon (advice, economic support, etc .), 2) admonition or warning, 3) orders pertaining to the living conditions of the child, and 4) superv ision . Only if such measures did not suffice, could the Board place the child under public care (Section 29) .* * â¢ Secllon 25 (a) reads : "The Child welfare Board shall uke measures as provided for by Sections 76 29
a) if a person, nm yet eighÂ¢en years of age . is rnallreated in his home or olherwise Ireated in a manner endangering his bodily or menul health, or if his developmeni is jeopardised because of ihe unfitness of his parems or other guardians responsible for his upbringing, or of their inability to nise ihe child ." â¢â¢ Secnun 29 reads : "The vouna oersun should lx uken imo public cam, if pmvenlive measuras are considered to be useless or if such measures have been tried wilhoui success ."
In emergency cases, the chairman of the Board could take action alone . In such a case, he had to arrange for a Board meeting within ten days to take a decision on the matter (Section 11) . According to Section 30 of the 1960 Act, children could be taken into custody for investigation provided that intervention under Section 25 was called for and immediate action was necessary to prevent dangerous consequences . Such custody could not last more than four weeks . A decision to place a child in care had to be communicated at once to the parents, and also to the child himself, if he had passed the age of 15 . If the parents would not consent to the decision, the matter had to be referred to the Regional Administrative Court (IdnsrÃ«tten) for a review within ten days (Section 24) . The Court's decision could be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrÃ¯tten) and from there to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrÃ¯tten) . A child in care was under the 1960 Act entitled to good care and upbringing and to such an education as his personal capacity and other circumstances required (Section 35) . The child was to be placed in a foster home or in a suitable institution . Placement in a foster home was always to take precedence over institutional placement, where there was a choice . The Board could under Section 41 of the Act decide whether to allow the parents to see their child regularly (umgÃ¯ngesrÃ¯u) . The Board decided if and when to discontinue care . However, care had to be discontinued when the child had reached the age of 18, or - if care was initiated when the child was more than 15 years old - three years after the beginning of the public care, at the latest (Section 42) . Decisions by the Board were subject to appeal to the Courts mentioned above, inter a(ia in the following cases : Decisions giving orders about the living conditions of the child, decisions on supervision, decisions rejec(ing petitions regarding orders on supervision or public care, injunctions on removal of the child from his foster home, and decisions on the visiting rights of parents . b) 7ire 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med s5rskilda best5mmelser om vgrd av unga) As of I January 1982 the basic rules on society's responsibili ty for the young are laid down in the Social Services Act (socialtjÃ«nstlagen) . This Act thus contains provisions regarding supportive and preventive measures, which are taken with the approval and consent of the individuals concemed . What has been said above about investigations, communication and appeals procedures still applies after 1982 . Decisions that were taken under the 1960 Act, which were still valid on 31 December 1981, were considered to be decisions taken under the new Act, whether it be the Social Services Act or the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons .
The latter Act is concerned only with those cases where the parents have refused to give their consent . Under Section I of this Act public care of a child may be decided , (I) if the lack of care of the child or any other condition in the child's home entails danger to the health or development of the child, provided the child is under 18 (the so-called environmenr situation), o r (2) if the child gravely endangers his health or development by abuse of drugs, delinquency or similar behaviour, provided the child is under 20 (the so-called behavioural situation) . The refomt of 1982 of the entire social welfare system also meant reorganisation of the responsible bodies . Today, a Social Welfare Council (socialntimnden) decides on child care ntatters . Otherwise, these Councils are manned in the same way as the old Child Welfare Boards, and their chairmen have the same powers as under the 1960 Act . Investigations are carried out in much the same way, and there is a staff of professionals assisting the Councils . If the Social Welfare Council deems an action necessary, the Council has to apply to the Regional Administrative Court for a decision . A difference compared to the 1960 Act, is that the Council does not make the decision itself . If the Council or the chairman of the Council has acted in an emergency situation and placed a child under public care, such an action must be confirmed by the court within two weeks . The procedure before the court is oral . Parents, witnesses and experts are present . The parents and the child are represented each by free legal counsel . The Council must present the entire contents of its investigation (including medical and other reports) and also a plan for the treatment of the child . Decisions by the court may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal . If the chairman of the Council has taken an emergency decision and the Regional Administrative Coun has approved the subsequent application, appeals can be brought the same way against such a decision . Once a decision on care has been taken, the Social Welfare Council has to execute the decision, take care of the practical details of where to place the child, what education and other treatment to give him, etc . The law requires the care of the child to be carried out in such a way as to enable him to have close contact with his relatives and to be able to visit his home . This requirement may mean that the child may return to his home, after a period, to live there, although he is still formally under public care (Section 11) . Care in foster homes is under the new Act called family home care . A decision on public care has to be reviewed by the Social Welfare Council regularly, at least once a year, if the original decision was based on the environmenral ground (Section 41 of the Ordinance on Social Services) .
The Social Welfare Council may regulate visits to and by parents . It may also decide not to disclose the whereabouts of the child to them . Such decisions may be appealed . 7he particular facts of the instant case Alexander was adopted on 8 April 1971 when he was two years old by the applicant and her then husband . The applicant had taken care of Alexander from his birth . The adoption took place in Finland . In 1975 the Southern Social District Council (s6dra sociala distriktsndmnden) of Lidingo decided to take the applicant's adoptive son, Alexander . into care . This decision could not be enforced as Alexander, with the assistance of the applicant, disappeared from the hospital where he was staying during the period of investigation . When he returned to Lidingb in 1977, Alexander was placed under supervision .
By a decision of I I October 1979 the Council decided to take Alexander into care pursuant to Sections 25 (a) and 29 of the Act on Child Welfare . It was decided that the decision should enter into force immediately irrespective of the fact that it had not acquired legal force . As reason for the decision it was invoked that Alexander was treated at home in a manner which subjected his health to danger and that his development was jeopardised on account of the applicant's unsuitability and lack of ability to foster him . As the applicant did not consent to the enforcement of the decision, it was submitted to the Regional Administrative Court of Stockholm for determination . By decision of 30 October 1979 the Court ordered that the decision could be enforced prior to the case having been finally decided by the Court . In November 1979, the Social Council placed Alexander at a hospital for investigation . However . it appears that Alexander disappeared from the hospital on 12 November . He then appeared in Finland and a child psychiatric examination of him was sought at Helsinki University Central Hospital . On 14 November 1 979 however two Swedish social workers and two Swedish male nurses came to the hospital, fetched Alexander and brought him back to Sweden . These events were subsequently examined by the Parlimentary Ombudsman (JO) following complaints from two individuals . By decision of 24 March 1982, the Parliamentary Ombudsman stated imer alia that the decision by the Head of the Social Administration to have Alexander returned to Sweden and the enforcement of it were not in accordance with the applicable provisions, but that the Head of the Administration could not be held responsible for unlawful deprivation of liberty due to lack of intent . Nor could he be held responsible for misuse of office since the decision could not be regarded as having been to the detriment of Alexander, nor of any public interests . The Ombudsman concluded that the wrongful acts of}he Head of the Administration could be excused in the circumstances . 124
On 16 January 1980 the Regional Administrative Court held a hearing in the case . The applicant and representatives of the Social Council were heard, as well as two witnesses, one called by each side . One medical cenificale and a repon from a social expert were read out in the Coun . By judgment of 13 February 1980 the Court confirrned the decision to take Alexander into care . In the judgment the following is stated as reasons : "The Social Council has in essence referred to what appears front the documents in the case and stated the following . The Social Council decided already in 1975 to lake Alexander into care . It was however not possible to enforce the decision since the boy disappeared from the hospital where he stayed during the tinte of investigation . When Alexander returned to Lidingii in 1977 he was placed under supervision . During the linte which has elapsed since then the Social Council has received several reports from which it appears that Alexander sometimes has been left without care and is often seen in amusement arcades in central Stockholm . Funhermore the police authorities have reported that he is often wanted by lhe mother and on several occasions has been lransported to his home by the police late in the evening . It also appears that he smokes and has begged for money for food and amusements and that he sometimes is away from his home the whole of the night . From the school concern has been expressed regarding Alexander's social situation . Alexander has said that he is locked up and prevented from going to school and that he is beaten at home . Alexander lacks normal relations with friends . He is almost always aggressive in his contact with persons of his own age . He has often tried to get away from home which must be considered as a way of fleeing from a contradictory and chaotic home environment . (The applicant) has in essence submitted the following . She considers that the investigation is too biased . She admits that she has had certain problems with Alexander, inter a[ia he has been mobbed at school . She considers however that he is not disturbed . She has a positive attitude towards assisting measures from lhe authorities . She has herself, in order to help Alexander, contacted the school and his supervisor . These efforts however have not been understood in the right way . Alexander's interest in the amusement arcade arose when (the applicant) worked in central Stockholm . He visited her often at the work and discovered in due course the amusement arcade . He continued to visit this arcade also after she had stopped working in Stockholm . (The applicant) was in the beginning worried about the environment in which the boy was but after having visiled the amusement arcade herself she considered that her anxiety was exaggerated . The relation between her and her son is good and he tells her everything even if he has done something which he is not allowed to do . Mrs . K . who has been heard at the request of (the applicanl) has in essence stated the following . The last time she visited the applicant's family was in July 1978 . She lived with the fantily for three months . The relation between th e
mother and the son was very warm . She has never seen (the applicant) beat Alexander or lock him up . Alexander was not disobedient towards his mother . He was like all other children and did not differ in any way . He played a lot and often had friends at home . Mr . Y . who has been heard at the request of the Social Council, has in essence stated the following . He met Alexander for the first time at (the hospital) where Alexander stayed during the period of investigation . Following that, Alexander lived with (the family of the witness) for one month before he was placed in a foster home . Taking his professional role as a starting point Mr . Y . considers Alexander to be emotionally disturbed and finds himself on the level of a five to six year old child . He is egocentric, has a fragile identity and is lacking distance . He has a need of being in the centre and of feeling Utat he is loved . This is not normal for a person in the age of pre-puberty . He has a bad conception of time and distance and his conception of fairness is at a primitive level . He did not show any regret when he was found to violate prohibitions . It was not possible to trust him because he lacked the ability of putting up any demands at all . He lacks self-criticism and demands unconditional praise all the time . He is living in a limited world and a world of lies . He has not had any normal relations with the other children who stayed at the family Y . Many components in his behaviour indicate a symbiotic relation to the mother . During the time he stayed at the family Y . he showed no signs of wishing to return to his mother . Nor did he show any signs of wishing to escape despite many possibilities to do so . Mr . Y . considers it to be compatible with the best interests of Alexander that he is separated from his home environment . Substitute Assisting Chief Doctor, Mrs . H ., at the Child and Youth Psychiatric Clinic at the hospital, states inter alia the following in a medical cenificate . Mrs . H . considers Alexander to be a disturbed boy despite normal intellectual development . His emotional development has been disturbed at an early stage and in order to make it possible to help him to a normal development he ought to be laken into care for placement in a foster home with access to qualified therapeutical assistance . The Social Officer Mr . D . has stated in an opinion that the relation between (the applicant) and Alexander is such that it has had a highly negative influence on the psychological health of Alexander and jeopardises his development . Mr . D . considers that the decision submitted should be upheld . The Regional Administrative Court makes the following assessmenl . From the investigation in the case it appears that (the applicant) does not have an insight in the needs of children and that she lacks ability to set firm borderlines for Alexander's behaviour . Funhermore it appears that Alexander shows serious disturbances of an emotional character and symptoms of neglect . In view of this and of other facts which have appeared in the case it must be considered to b e
established that Alexander at his home is treated in such a way that his psychological health is endangered and that his development is jeopardised on account of the mother's unsuitability and lacking ability to foster him . Preventive measures, inter alia in the fornt of supervision, have been taken without leading to rectification . " Prior to this, by decision of 23 November 1979, the Social District Council decided that the applicant should not have any right of access to Alexander, and that his place of residence should not be disclosed to the applicant . The reasons for this decision were that a similar decision had been taken on I I October 1979, at the same time as it was decided to take Alexander into care . However, Alexander had on 12 November been taken away unlawfully from the hospital where he had been placed, and there were reasons to believe that the applicant had arranged it . Alexander was found in Helsinki and was retumed to Sweden on 14 November . The applicant appealed against this decision to the Regional Administrative Court, which by a judgment of 6 February 1981 rejected the appeal . The reasons were the following : "The Regional Administrative Court held an oral hearing in the presence of (the applicant) on 16 January 1980 in the case conceming (the public care) . In view of this and having regard to the extensive written material in the present case the Coun considers an oral hearing to be unnecessary for determining th e case . In view of the fact that there are seveml psychiatric reports in both the case concerning the public care and the present case the Court does not consider it necessary to make further investigations in this respect . From the documents in the case concerning public care it appears that Alexander shows serious emotional disturbances and that these were grounded at an early age . Furthermore it appears that the relation between (the applicant) and Alexander is such that it has had a highly negative influence on Alexander's psychological health and has jeopardised his development . Front the investigation in the present case it appears that the foster parents have done considerable work in order to rehabilitate Alexander, and that he develops favourably but that the development is slow and the results are fragile . Funhermore it appears that Alexander, after having received knowledge of the fact that an investigation was to be made on the issue whether the mother should be able to meet him or not, has relapsed for a certain period into his previous behaviour with anxiety . difficulties of concentration, suspicion and aggression . In view of this and of other facts which have appeared in the case the Court considers that it is not excluded that the positive developmenl which has been achieved in the foster home would be destroyed if Alexander's address was disclosed and if (the applicant) thereby had the possibility to take personal contact with Alexander . The address of the foster home ought therefore not to be disclosed at present . 127
The Court takes it for granted however that the Social Council will continuously consider whether or not and if so in which form a contact between Alexander and the mother can be established . " The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm against both the decision conceming public care of Alexander and the decision conceming access to hint . The applicant requested the Court to permit a child psychologist . Mr . F ., to meet Alexander . The Court rejected the appeals by two separate judgments both dated 18 September 1981 . The judgment concerning public care states as follows in the reasons : "The Administrative Court of Appeal, which held an oral hearing on 27 and 28 August and I September 1981, does not consider that there are reasons to order further investigations concerning Alexander prior to the determination of the case . On the basis of unanimous statements by the witnesses (the Chief Doctor at the Child and Youth Psychiatric Clinic at the hospital Mrs . H ., the Child Doctor Mr . L . . Alexander's two teachers Mrs . M . and Mr . L .) and all the other facts of the case the Court considers it to be established that Alexander, at the time when he was taken into care, showed serious emotional and social disturbances . The disturbances may well be explained by the lack of treatment and fostering he was subjected to at the home . There was a considerable risk for the psychological health and general development of Alexander on account of (the applicant's) lack of ability to give him adequately the care and fostering which he needed . From 17 December 1979 Alexander was placed in a foster home . From two reports of the competent child and youth psychiatric clinic, the latest dated 26 May 1981, it appears that Alexander has developed and continues to develop in a positive direction in the foster home . In certain situations he relapses emotionally and does not react adequately which is seen as a sign of his early disturbance . He is therefore still in need of a lot of help in drawing up borderlines and establishing norms . According to the assessment of the clinic it is necessary that Alexander may stay in the safe environment in the foster home in order that his developntent is not further jeopardised . He is still considered to be too unstable to manage the further difficulty which a personal contact with (the applicant) would imply . The doctor Mrs . H ., who after almost two years has met Alexander again in August 1981, has in her testimony conftrmed the change for the better which Alexander has undergone . She has funhermore stated that it would be fatal to Alexander's psychological health and development if he should now be brought back to (the applicant) .
In view of what has thus appeared and of the other facts of the case, the Court considers that the relations are still such that Alexander's psychological health would be in danger and his development would be jeopardised if he was now to be returned to the care of (the applicant) . Preventive measures cannot be considered to be sufficient . The decision to take Alexander into public care should therefore be confirmed . " The following is quoted from the judgment conceming access to Alexander : "Alexander, who is now twelve years of age, has been placed in a foster home since 17 December 1979 . He has not himself disclosed his address to (the applicant) or taken any initiative to meet her . From the investigation in the case conceming public care, in particular the testimony by the Chief Doctor at the Child and Psychiatric Clinic at the hospital Mrs . H ., and the investigation in the present case it appears that an initiative for access from (the applicant's) side would not at present be suitable in view of the care and development of Alexander . (The applicant) ought therefore still to be deprived of her right of access to Alexander . His address should thus not be disclosed . " The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court which by decision of 24 February 1982 refused to grant leave Ã¯o appeal . The applicant has submitted two expert opinions . One is dated 9 February 1981 and is issued by a doctor, who stated that after having examined the documents and medical cenificates in the file he considered that it was in no way convincingly established that the taking into care of Alexander was justified, nor that the denial of access to him for the applicant was warranted . The second report is dated 28 August 1983 and is issued by a professor in child psychiatry . She stated in short that the separation of the applicant and her son impaired the son's as well as the applicant's state of health . On 8 May 1984, Alexander disappeared from the foster home to Finland, where he is now together with the applicant . In a judgment of 20 June 1984, the District Coun (tingsrdtt) of Stidra Roslag appointed a special custodian for Alexander . The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Svea Court of Appeal (hovrÃ¯tt) . On I October 1984 the Social Council decided that the public care should be discontinued and that the Council should accept in the proceedings before the Svea Court of Appeal that thejudgment of the District Court of 20 June 1984 be repealed . In its decision the Council stated inter alia : "The Council finds that Alexander is still in need of the special care which at the time was the basis for the decision on public care . The Council is also of the opinion that a special custodian, in normal circumstances, would contribute to this in a favourable way . However since Alexander has disappeared to Finland . the Council has been deprived of its factual vossibilities to provide fo r
his needs in an effective way . The compulsory measures which could be used are considered to be counterproductive . Moreover, it is clear that the special custodian cannot in these circumstances fulfil his task in an adequate way, in particular since (the applicant) is completely negative to all forms of cooperation . Thus since continuing public care under the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons Section I sub-section I, would only be a purely fortnal matter, it is appropriate to repeal that decision . For the same reason the Council finds that it should not maintain its standpoint that a special custodian should be appointed . In its assessment the Council has also had regard to the fact that Alexander is now more than 15 years of age and that he, at the latest discussion, in conflict with his previous statements, has expressed the wish to remain in his present conditions . "
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the Swedish authorities have subjected her son and herself to inhuman treatment . She states that the essential reason for the decision to separate her son from her is that she has written critical articles about the Swedish social system . She states that she and her son are the objects of revenge . The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 3 . 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No . I .
BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 10 April 1981 but was pursued only in September 1983 . The application was registered on 7 September 1983 . On 14 March 1984 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government for written observations on its admissibility and merits . The Government's observations were received by a letter of 25 May 1984 and the applicant's observations were received by a letter dated 13 July 1984 . Further observations were received from the applicant on 28 September 1984 and 14 April 1985 . On 12 October 1984 the Commission granted legal aid to the applicant . On 7 December 1984 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hea ri ng on the admissibility and merits of the application .
At the hearing which was held on 14 May 1985, the parties were represented as follows : 77+e Gavernmen t Mr . Hans Corell Under Secretary for Legal and Consular Affairs, Ambassador, Ministry for Foreign Affairs . Agent Mr . Staffan Duhs Counsellor, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Advise r Mrs . Genrud Holmquist Legal Adviser, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Advise r Mrs . Ilse Wetter Legal Adviser . Lidingii Municipality, Advise r 7ife Applicmn Mr . Lennart Hane Lawyer (advokat ) The applicant was also present at the hearing .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S A . The Governmen t The Government make the following general comment pertaining to all cases concerning public care pending before the Commission . The facts on which a decision of this kind is based shall appear in the court's decision . The decision is founded on evidence given at the hearing and on other information available in the Coun's file . This means that there is in principle no other way to explain the facts on which a decision or judgment is founded than to refer to the decision or judgment itself . It might be added that since decisions and judgments of this kind are public it may sometimes be that the court purposely avoids going too much into detail in order not to expose the person concerned unnecessarily . The applicant has made general allegations of a very serious nature about the reason why children are taken into custody in Sweden . The Govemment emphasise that the sole aim of the legislation in question is to protect the rights of children who are in need of protection and support . The Government refer to some figures from the Swedish Bureau of Statistics (statistiska centralbyran) on cases under the 1980 Act and submit that it emerges from (his material that the figures given by the applicant are misleading . a) The Facts Conceming the background and the facts leading to the decision on public care, the Government refer to the judgments of 13 February 1980 and 6 February 1981 of the Regional Administrative Coun, to the two judgments of 18 September 198 1 131
by the Administrative Court of Appeal, and to the decision of 24 Febrvary 1982 by the Supreme Administrative Court . The Government also refer to the investigation made by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and to his decision of 24 March 1982 . The Government summarise the facts that led to the care decision as follows : Alexander was left without care . He spent a considerable part of his time in downtown Stockholm . where he was seen begging for money and visiting amusement arcades . His mother had on occasions asked the police for assistance in finding Alexander . He was aggressive towards his peers at school . Alexander alleged himself that he was prevented from going to school and that he was beaten at home . The relationship between him and his mother was deemed to be a danger to his development . Preventive measures (supervision) did not have any effect . As the documents of the present case are so voluminous it is not possible for the Governnient to present all aspects of the case to the Commission . The Govemment therefore request the Commission to appoint one of its members or a delegation with the task of examining the files of the case . The Govemment add the following . The adoption of Alexander took place in Finland on 8 April 1971 . The applicant and her husband had however been living at Lidingti in Sweden since 1963 . The records show that they moved to Finland for a short period in 1971 . Since the applicant did not visit the Child Care Centre . an official from the Child Welfare Board made a visit to the applicant's home in February 1972 . The official was bullied by the applicant, who claimed that she was ten years younger than her trve age and that the child was hers . The case of Alexander was discussed on various occasions by the social authoritiesat Lidingti, since concemed repons came in from a doctor and the police . According to the police Alexander had left his home in 1973 on several occasions . An investigation was commenced by the social authorities . According to an examination by a child psychiatrist in October 1973, there were however no reasons from a mental point of view to take Alexander into care . In June 1974 the social authorities were alerted by the police again . The reason was that the applicant had been arrested for instigation of perjury . Actions were considered again in August 1974 by the Social Welfare Board, but none were deemed to be necessary . Alexander went to a playschool where he was considered disturbed and aggressive . He did not know his name, which was a concem to his teachers, who did their best to support him . The teacher claims that she had a hard time because of conflicts with the applicant . At this time the applicant had another man living with her, Mr . M .H . . supposedly at the same time as the husband lived there, but this is not clear . In fact, Alexander was now being brought up by the applicant and this man, a twenty-six-year-old student .
On 26 June 1975 two of the aoDlicant's neighbours reported on Alexander's conditions to the Social Welfare Board . Great concern was now sensed at the child welfare authority and the neiÂ¢hbours aereed to keep contact with the Board . It tumed out that Alexander had often called the neighbours on the telephone . He cried on these occasions and said either that his mother was away or that she was asleep and that he could not wake her up . The boy often visited the neighbours where he stayed sometimes from eight in the morning until ten in the evening . Occasionally he wore strange and insufficient clothing . He also showed symptoms of fear of going home . It happened that he asked the neighbour if he could stay with them when the applicant, her husband or the student called for him . Concern was also expressed by two maids, who had been with the applicant's family between January and June, and June and July respectively . On 29 August 1975 the Social Welfare Board decided to subject Alexander to an examination . His home environment was strange, reports from the playschool showed serious misadaptation . Reports during the summer disclosed emotional disturbances and revealed beating, locking up, and forced feeding in the child's environment, which was chaotic . Scenes of fear occurred when the child was taken back to his home . The word "psychological assault" was used . The parents were forbidden to see Alexander who was fetched by a policeman on 2 Septentber 1975 . He was placed in a children's home . On 9 September 1975 Alexander was transferred to the hospital of Danderyd at the request of Dr . G .K . who performed the examination . The parents were allowed to see Alexander at the hospital . Dr . K . stated that Alexander was disturbed in his development and that his psychological development was seriously threatened . Since it was hardly probable that his home environment would improve within a reasonable time he recommended public care in a foster home and no visits trom the parents .
On 26 September 1975 the Social District Board of Lidingii decided to take Alexander into care . This decision was never enforced . On 23 September 1975 Alexander was illegally taken from the hospital and could not be found . It is believed that the student who visited the hospital together with the applicant and her husband had escaped with the boy through a window . On 7 October 1975 the applicant was found by the police in Finland where she claimed that Alexander was in Munich . It appears that the applicant and her husband returned to Lidingd in 1977 . The decision to take Alexander into care was repealed since the applicant and her husband declared their willingness to co-operate with the social authorities . However in the end they never co-operated . On 12 January 1978 the applicant and her husband divorced and the applicant was given the legal custody of Alexander . In the autumn of 1978 there were contacts between the social welfare authorities and Alexander's school . His teacher was worried, since Alexander was aggressive and showed an abnormal behaviour in certain situations . He had difficulties with his schoolmates and had fits of rage . On 13 September 1979 Dr . G .K . made an official notice to the Child Welfare Board concerninR the applicant's family . It had come to his knowledge that Alexander smoked and committed thefts . wa s 133
locked up and beaten in his home . On the same day the Lidingo police announced that Alexander had been reported as missing to the police on several occasions in the recent past . The mother had made the repotts herself, telling the police that Alexander was very interested in pinball machines and liked to hang around amusement arcades, playing and begging for money and cigarettes . According to the social welfare authorities, the applicant even encouraged Alexander to visit amusement arcades . She had also been with him there in order to satisfy herself that the environment was not all that harmful . Alexander was then ten years old . On 1 I October 1979 the Child Welfare Board decided again to take Alexander into care . Alexander was ftrst placed at the Child Psychiatric Clinic of the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm for examination . Alexander disappeared from the hospital under uncertain circumstances and was taken into the Central University Hospital in Helsinki on the following day . Alexander was however, since he was a Swedish citizen, handed over to two social welfare officers and two male nurses from Sweden on the following day and brought back to the hospital in Stockholm . After some time at the Karolinska Hospital and with a psychologist Alexander was transferred to a foster home . The foster home was situated outside StrÃ¯ngnÃ¯s about 100 km from Stockholm . Alexander stayed with his foster parents Mr . S .S . and Mrs . M .A . from 17 December 1979 until May 1984, almost five years . As regards the reasons for taking Alexander into care, the Government state that the Social Welfare Board based its decision on a medical certificate by Dr . A .N . of 4 October 1979 in which it is stated as follows : "Alexander is a disturbed boy despite unusual intellectual development . His emotional development has been disturbed at an early stage and in order to make it possible to help him to develop normally he ought to be taken into public care for placement in a foster home with access to qualified therapeutical assistance . " The Government also refer to the reasons stated in the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court and of the Administrative Court of Appeal . The Government submit that in view of what the courts have found, especially since they have been able to form their opinion after oral hearings in confrontation with persons, including the applicant, involved in this matter, there can be no doubt that there were very good reasons to take Alexander into care . As regards the conditions in Alexander's foster home the Government submit the following : The foster home is situated on an island (SelaBn) in the lake of MÃ¢laren about 110 km from Stockholm . When Alexander arrived at the foster home he spoke very bad Swedish . He had no real language . In order to train his Swedish it was agreed in the foster home that Alexander should keep a diary in order to practise . The idea was that the foster parents should be able to read the diary in orde r 134
to follow his linguistic training . In the beginning Alexander was ve ry afraid . He was used to sleeping in his mother's bed . According to the applicant's own information "Alexander would not be able to sleep if she was not there" . The boy was very anxious and disturbed . He tested his foster parents by lighting small fires, going on raids at night and was utterly unbalanced . For the first six months he could not even be left alone . It was decided in the foster home in agreement with Alexander that he eventually should occupy the room behind the bedroom of the foster parents . This was because they would be able to notice if he went out or needed help at night . The circumstances were rather pressing for the foster parents, since Alexander could not be left alone . However after hard work they managed eventually to get him to accept a placement at school . This went reasonably well . Alexander spent much time together with his foster father . They built a boat and Alexander proved to be very talented as a handyworker . Later Alexander said that he wanted to be a carpenter or a woodwork teacher . The family led an ordinary family life, went on outings and small trips . They kept animals at home . In the beginning Alexander used to be cruel to the animals, but after some time he was trained not to be . In the foster home discussions were held concerning norms for contacts with other people, and eventually Alexander made friends among neighbours and schoolmates . On every occasion when Alexander was asked whether he wanted to see his mother or have contacts with her, he was of the opinion that he wanted to wait . His opinion was that "she just plays tricks on me" . The foster father understood that Alexander ought to see his mother and he even met her in order to arrange a meeting but Alexander refused . Alexander never tried to contact his mother . Since she looked for him around the country he had to attend the school under name of his foster parents . It appears that Alexander wanted this himself. Due to a mistake however by a child psychiatric office the mother found out where Alexander was . After this the foster parents, neighbours, relatives and the personnel at Alexander's school were persecuted by telephone calls from a woman . This woman had, like the applicant, a Finnish dialect and she claimed to represent various authorities . In view of the allegations that Alexander has been kept out of school by his foster parents the following information is submitted . Alexander arrived in his foster home in 1979 . During the spring term of 1980 the child psychiatrist at Eskilstuna, a neighbouring town, who supervised Alexander in the foster home, made the assessment that he could not go to school immediately but must have teaching at home . Much work was invested both by the school and the foster home in finding suitable literature, especially since Alexander's language was poor . At the outset of the autumn term 1980 it was deemed that Alexander had reached the fifth form level, which is normal for a twelve-year-old child . He was successively introduced into school but teaching was still delivered in his home . He had separate teaching by his form master, because it was considered that he coul d 135
not adapt to teaching in a group . In the spring term of 1981 he attended school like any youngster . Alexander went to school for the whole of the 1981 spring tertn and the autumn and spring terms of 1981-82 in the sixth form . He was considered an average pupil . He advanced although he had some problems with some classmates . At the outset of the autumn term 1982 Alexander was to start in the seventh form . That meant that he had to change school . The new school was situated in another city, Mariefred . The journey to school was longer, which was the same for other pupils . The adaptation between the sixth and the seventh form is usually quite a strain on all pupils in Sweden . It turned out that Alexander became a member of a gang of pupils who occupied themselves by frequenting amusement arcades, stealing etc . The foster parents were very concerned and efforts were made both by them and the school to sort things out . The school authorities decided that Alexander should stay at home during the spring term of 1983 and be taught there . This decision was taken by the school authorities . The idea was that Alexander was to be introduced to another school at the outset of the autumn term 1983 . He then started at a school at Strtingnds . He attended the school the whole autumn term and obtained a reasonably good report . However, in December 1983, a very sad thing happened . Alexander apparently told a classmate that his foster father had beaten him with a chain . There was an investigation . and Alexander was examined by a doctor or a school nurse . In the end it tumed out that there was no truth whatsoever behind Alexander's allegations, and according to the psychiatrists, Alexander lost prestige before his classmates . Things began to disappear in school and the foster father found a wallet in his home which did not belong there . The foster parents were very hesitant at the prospect of Alexander returning to school during the spring term and those concemed were of the opinion that some kind of special arrangement had to be made for ihe spring term . On the part of the school, special resources for teaching were suggested . The foster father, however, was of the opinion that it was better if certain teaching was performed at home . This was eventually decided . During spring there were also discussions about "a reunification programme" . This was suggested by a psychologist Mr . S .H . Alexander was however very firm in his opinion that he did not want to see his mother, and he repeatedly refused to take part in the reunification process . In the foster home Alexander had a bike and later also a small motorbike . From time to time he used to bike to school . He stayed overnight with schoolmates also during some weekends . He was free to move about on his small motorbike . He attended sailing camps and travelled abroad with his foster parents . He also visited Stockholm with his foster father . In reply to the allegations that Alexander was kept prisoner in his foster home it is submitted that it rather seems as if Alexander chose to be with the foster parents and that he felt safe there . In May 1984 Alexander was heard by a District Court in connection with the question of legal custody of him . It appears from the transcripts of the tapes submitted by the applicant that Alexander felt quite at home with his foster parents an d
that he did not want to be with the applicant . The Govemment refer to the judgment by the District Court of 20 June 1984 and the statements made therein by the District Court . The Government note that the District Court, after hearings lasting for six days, came to the conclusion that the applicant was not suitable as legal guardian for Alexander . The Court found that the applicant's criticisms against the authorities had been grossly exaggerated . On the other hand the court, to a certain extent, adhered to the opinion that some actions and deliberations were less well advised . Especially, the Court could not understand why the authorities, on some occasions, had refused experts permission to see Alexander . Conceming the main issue however the Court expressed the following : "From the applicant's point of view it is understandable that she also wants to use inappropriate methods in order to get her son back, and it cannot be denied that her love for the son is great . On several occasions however she has shown that she cannot realise that her son has been psychically maltreated and that he ought to be taken care of in calmness for examination and treatment . Several people heard in the case have expressed the view that the applicant is "obsessed" by the thought of having her son back or that her efforts have been "intellectualised" to the extent that they have become more of an idea than a real concem for Alexander . This opinion goes well with other observations, according to which the applicant earlier was more interested in her son's intellectual capacity than in his security and state of mind . The Court can hardly imagine that the applicant against this background could be a suitable guardian in case she would be granted the guardianship" . Alexander disappeared from his foster home in May 1984 and as far as the Govemment are informed he is now living with his mother in Finland . In a decision of I October 1984 the Social Council decided that the public care of Alexander should be discontinued and that the Council should accept before the Svea Court of Appeal that the judgment of the District Court of 20 June 1984 should be repealed as regards the issue of the legal custody . The Govemment refer to the reasons indicated in the decision of the Social Council . b) Adntissibility and Merits The Government reserve their position as regards the documents etc . submitted by the applicant on 14 April 1985 . The Govemment have no objections to the admissibility of the application as regards the sir months rale and the domestic remedies rule with respect to the issues under Article 8 . In the opinion of the Govemment the decision on public care, as well as that of taking Alexander into custody for investigation, was in conformity with the 19 60 Act on Child Welfare and justified also with respect to Article 8 of the Convention . The same applies to the decision to refuse the applicant access to Alexander .
In this context the Government refer to several decisions of the Commission, inter alia, eg . No . 6854/74 (Dec . 29 .9 .76 . D .R . 7 p . 81) and No . 8924/80 (Dec . 10 .3 .81, D .R 24 p . 183) . The Commission has constantly held that decisions to take children away from their parents . placing them under public care, is an interference with Article 8 of the Convention . But the Commisssion has also held that the circumstances of the case, the facts about the children's situation, and the investigation showed that the authorities' decisions were justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, by the need to care for the health of the children . As regards the alleged violation of Article 3, the Govenunent contest Lhat this Article has been violated . Reference is made in particular to the investigation made by the Parliamentary Ombudsman . The Govemment submit that in any event this complaint is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies . It appears that the applicant has not even reported her allegations to the police . c) Conclusio n The Government conclude Lhat the application should be declared inadmissible, and that, as regards the merits, there has been no violation of the Convention . B.
The App(ican t
The applicant states that she took care of Alexander from his birth, but the adoption took some years to complete formally . Mr . M .H ., to whom the Government have referred, lived with the applicant's family and was partly brought up by the applicant . The husband left the home in 1973 although the legal divorce was only completed in 1978 . At the end of January 1984 the applicant obtained knowledge of the secret foster home in which Alexander had been placed since 1979 . The applicant submits that previously Swedish law was based on written law with clear definitions and very careful descriptions in the law as regards the right of the State to interfere with human rights . As regards children and the family, two changes have occurred which have had disastrous consequences for human rights . First, there is a completely new language, a whole battery of terms and a number of experts who exclusively and alone interpret these terms . The right of the family and the children's fundamental rights to live together with their parents at home were changed radically around 1972-73 . It was not necessary to change the law, it was sufficient with a pilot case, in which a child was taken away only on account of "emotional" problems . Thereafter it has been very difficult for parents and children to defend their mutual connection . It is submitted Lhat it is slightly misleading against this background to say Lhat the criteria are the same in the 1960 Act as in the 1980 Act . Under the new Swedish system the rights do not play any role . The lawyers cannot help their clients and the Courts are completely in the hands of the experts . All these experts are paid by the public, thereby becoming public experts and they
are not accessible for the parents or the lawyers . In practice this means that the forrnal description of the Swedish system is correct . There are a lot of formal rights, but there are no substantial rights . There are no strict rules which protect the childfantily unit . You only have the formal right to go to court in every respect . To be a foster parent in Sweden is probably the most profitable business . In this case the authority paid to the foster father around 8,000 Swedish Crowns a month, half of which was not subject to taxation . At the same time two to three other children were kept in the foster home . This means that the foster parents had an income of 32 .IX70-35,000 Swedish Crowns per month, half of which was not subject to taxation . The Government refer to the dossier in general as evidence of the specific reasons for the decisions concerning Alexander . In doing so, the Govemment in practice deny the applicant the right to answer all their charges . The dossier contains, inter alia, two documents written by social workers, one dated in September 1975 and the other in October 1979 . It is on these documents that the Social Welfare Council of Lidingti based its decision to separate Alexander from the applicant, and it is also on these documents that the experts, who supported this decision in the courts, based their opinion on her . The authors of these documents are the social workers who were primarily concerned with taking the child from her . They make her appear as an extremely unpleasant person, to a great extent by quoting what they allege that she has said to them or by quoting what they allege that other persons have told them she has said . Sometimes they allege that other persons have said to them that she has done this or that . To the extent that these statements have not been examined by the couns, they should not give rise to any conclusion to the effect that the applicant is unsuitable to have charge of her child . These documents have been drafted only after Alexander had been separated from his ntother . It is very easy for the social workers who wrote these reports and who clearly want the court to condone their prior action in abducting the child to present a biased point of view or an incorrect statement of what others have said . Even when their report correctly records what the witness said, the statement itself may be untrue . For example, the dossier correctly records that Doctor K . gave as his reasons . inter alia, for recommending immediate and urgent abduction of Alexander that he was beaten in his home and that the applicant was continuously drunk . Doctor K . had seen neither Alexander nor the applicant for four years when he made this statement and he later admitted to the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern) that the statement was untrue when the applicant brought this to the latter's attention . The Chancellor of Justice, however, did not find this a cause for censuring the doctor . He found that Doctor K . had not committed any wrong in giving false and damaging information, presumably because he thought the end justified the means . The applicant objects to the Govermnent's presentation of the specific facts that led to the care decision . She did not leave Alexander without care . On the contrary, the evidence, available in the file, is that she was very energetic in trying to solv e
the problems due to the fact that Alexander was bullied by other boys in his school and was therefore depressed and restless . She was frequently in contact with his teacher and suggested different ways of dealing with the situation, eg . that they would arrange for Alexander to go home by taxi after the classes . On the occasions in September 1979, when he lingered in an amusement arcade, playing pin ball instead of going home to have supper, she asked the police to go there and tell Alexander and the other children to go home . She had planned for Alexander and herself to go to Bolivia, where she could work and she had arranged Por him to go to a Swedish school there . That would have saved him from the bullying boys in the Lidingb school, and it is highly probable that this would also have put an end to his depression and restlessness . He was very happy about the joumey, and it was a terrible shock for him - as well as for the applicant - when he was violently fetched by the police in his school on the very eve of their planned departure . The applicant very much doubts that Alexander said that he was prevented by her from going to school and that he was beaten up at home . These allegations on the part of the Government are based on third hand information and are, most likely, due to lies . They have never been examined by the courts . No evidence or sign of beating has ever been found on the boy as long as he was in the applicant's care . The couris, which have examined the decision to take Alexander into care and to keep his foster home secret, have been biased . They have accepted the local social authority's allegation that the applicant was a danger to Alexander's development on the basis of the opinion of so-called experts, Mrs . H ., a doctor, and Mr . Y, a psychologist . Neither of them had ever examined her . Their opinion is based on what the social workers told them about the applicant . The Regional Administrative Court did not take any notice of the witness who gave evidence in favour of the applicant . The Administrative Court of Appeal took no notice of Doctor F .'s opinion . The laner is a Swedish expert in child and adult psychiatry, who after having examined the applicant gave the opinion that she is "a highly educated and intellectual woman and an emotionally very warrn person, very capable of bringing up a child with full responsibility for the child's best possible intellectual and emotional development" . The courts have shut their eyes to the fact that one of the reasons mentioned by the social workers for taking Alexander into public care in 1979 was that the applicant had recently published, in Finland, some articles which, according to them, "exposed Swedish social authorities generally and, in particular, the social office at Lidingti to pure slander" . The courts as well as the Ombudsman failed to see that such a ground for taking a child away from his home is a violation of the freedom of expression . On the whole, the social workers have for many years acted against the applicant in a spi rit of vindictiveness and totalitarian ideas . Thus the wri tt en report by the social workers of 1975 shows that they disapproved of her wish to give Alexander an intemational education . It appears from this repo rt that the first examination taking half a ye ar - of Alexander's situation was initiated only because a distri ct 140
nurse had reported, in Febtuary 1972, that the applicant spoke English to the boy and that he had no playmates . Nothing was, however, then found that could justify any suspicion that anything was wrong . It appears from the same report that the social workers were hostile to her placing Alexander in the Anglo-American school in Stockholm . They report that for two years they tried to "motivate" her to move him to a daycare centre - when he was too old for that, to a playschool - run by the municipality . The fact is that they harassed her so much that finally she gave in and put him in a playschool run by the municipality and, later, in a school rUn by the municipality . She now regrets this very much, since Alexander would, no doubt, never have been bullied by his schoolmates, had he continued in the Anglo-American school, where he would not have appeared "odd" because of his international background, which was the case in the municipal school . The applicant submits that she has been deprived of her child, not because of lack of care, but because she wished to give the child an intellectual education . She has appealed to the authorities that Alexander, at her own cost, should be placed either in the Karlsson's school in Stockholm or the Lundsberg's school in Vtirrnland . However, the applicant's intentions as regards her child were disliked by the officials who are the ones who effectively have been deciding in the case . In order to prevent the applicant from deciding on the child's education it was decided to take the child into care and to subject him to treatment which would diminish his character . In order to avoid the influence of the applicant the contact between the mother and child was completely disrupted . No letters were permitted, and the mother was not allowed to know about the whereabouts of the child . The custody of the child was awarded to a habitual criminal offender, a person who had undergone long term prison sentences . The woman who, without being married to him, lived with him was also convicted . The child was kept as a prisoner on an island for one and a half years . He was even deprived of normal schooling . The child was subjected to assault and forced labour on a boat . He was inter alia hit by a steel wire . The intention was to make him a labourer instead of an intellectual . He was even deprived of his name . During the last years in the foster home the foster parents had separated . The foster mother had married another man . Moreover, Alexander was the first child of such a tender age who had been placed in this foster home . The other children were older and were often criminals or prostitutes . The foster father was particularly talented to frighten such young persons, and he frightened Alexander so that he would not escape . The applicant's sad case has as a prerequisite the fact that it is impossible to have an intpartial examination of the measures taken by the authorities . The proceedings before the administrative courts are in principle written . The experts of the authorities enjoy an unreasonable confidence with the courts . What they say in certificates is generally accepted . Independent experts in child welfare and education are rare, since there is no market for such experts outside the public sector . In addition, the courts tend to disregard what the independent experts submit . Sometimes the y 141
even refuse to hear such experts . Furthermore, the applicant's critical newspaper articles in Finnish press have caused revenge from the authorities which has been accepted in the courts . The courts have basically read the case, including newspaper articles, and not heard the case . It is submitted that the applicant's freedom of expression has been violated . Alexander was forced to change his name to Svensson . It is disputed that the child psychiatric clinic of Eskilstuna advised that Alexander should not attend school . The clinic was engaged in the matter at the end of 1980 on request of the Coun in order to investigate whether it was warranted from a medical and psychological point of view that the applicant was not allowed to have any contact with her child . At the time of Alexander's successful escape on 8 May 1984 proceedings were going on before the District Court of Siidra Roslag . The Social Welfare Council of Lidingd had applied to the court to withdraw the applicant's still remaining authority to act for Alexander in strictly legal matters . Alexander was heard by the court on 7 May . He only dared to say what the foster father and the social workers wanted him to say ; that he was perfectly happy in the foster home and that he did not want to have anything to do with his mother . Alexander escaped from the foster home the following day . The applicant played no part in initiating this escape, but of course helped him as soon as he contacted her after his escape . She had not been permitted to see him, let alone speak to him, during the court proceedings, and had not seen him for more than four and a half years . He had managed to contact her in secret on the telephone sometimes, but that was very seldom and the last time she had spoken to him was about two months before his escape . His escape was planned and executed by him of his own will . The applicant refers to several incidents of alleged ill-treatment of Alexander in the foster home . The conditions in the foster home came to the attention of the responsible social councils and on 5 May 1983 a meeting with social welfare officials from different Councils was held at StrÃ¯ngnas . At least one social council decided that the child which it had placed in Alexander's foster home should be taken away immediately as a result of ill-ireatment . However, although the Liding8 Social Council was recommended to take Alexander away, he nevertheless stayed in the foster home . It is submitted that Alexander was not permitted to attend school during 1980 and 1981, and part of 1984 . The applicant has always endeavoured to ensure to Alexander a deep cultureoriented upbringing with intemational contacts and training in different languages . The choice of the foster home was completely contrary to the wishes of the applicant . 142
When, after his first year in the foster home, Alexander was allowed to go to school, he was rigidly supervised even there and had no chance to escape . He was not allowed to make any telephone calls from the school or to go to a school outing without his foster father being present . Thus he has lost a lot of schooling . One of his teachers has reported that she was never allowed to talk to him on the telephone, when she called the foster home in order to discuss some matters with him . The applicant was anxious to have an independent report on her child's conditions . The Social Welfare Council, supported by the court of second instance, did not permit Doctor F ., a Swedish child psychiatrist, to see Alexander in 1981 . In September 1982 a Finnish professor of child psychiatry, Mrs . K ., came to Sweden in accordance with an agreement with the chairman of the Social Welfare Council in order to meet Alexander . But she was not allowed to see him, after two social workers, Doctor H . (the child psychiatrist who had recommended the decision to take Alexander into public care), and two supervising authorities had all warned that it would be dangerous for Alexander to meet Professor K . The same thing happened in January 1984, when Mrs . Birgitta Wolf from Murnau in Germany had come to Sweden in order to meet Alexander in the foster home . However, she - who is an intemationally famous person committed for thirty years to work for humane treatment of prisoners - put political pressure on the Social Welfare Council and finally managed to be allowed to see Alexander and the foster parents - but not in the foster honte . She had to go to an hotel in Uppsala . She has described what happened in three newspaper articles, to which the applicant refers . As regards the issue under Article 8 para . 2 it is submitted that the physical investigations which were made in 1975 and 1979 showed that Alexander was healthy without any signs of ill-treatment . The apprehension of Alexander is said to have been made to help Alexander's psychological health or protect hint from the detrimental influence of the applicant . It was said that Alexander should be placed in a foster home with access to qualified therapeutical assistance . The applicant submits with reference to several statements by child psychiatric expens that the reasons given were completely unfounded and even counterproductive . The correct description of the investigation made is in the applicant's opinion "misuse of psychiatry in isolation front home and fantily" . To defend the public care decision by invoking that it was necessary in a democratic society is nothing but a scandal . In spite of the recommendation by Doctor H . that Alexander should be placed in a foster home with access to qualified therapeutical assistance, he did not even meet a child psychiatrist or psychologist until November 1980 and then only in order to be examined . In summary, this is a flagrant case of violations of Articles 3, 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention and of Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 . 143
THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains that the taking of her son into care is a violation of Article 8 of the Convention . She also complains that the denial of access to the son when he was in public care is a breach of Article 8 . Article 8 of the Convention reads : "1 . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . 2 . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . " The Government have submitted that the applicant's complaints under Article 8 are inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded . The Commission considers that the applicant's complaints raise issues of fact and law, which are of such complexity that their determination should depend upon an examination of the merits . This part of the application is therefore not manifestly ill-founded and must be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established . 2 . The applicant has also alleged a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No . I . This Article reads as follows : "No person shall be denied the right to education . In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions . " Having examined the parties' submissions under Article 2 of Protocol .No . I the Commission considers Ihat an issue arises as to whether the Social Council, during the time when the applicant's child was in public care has shown due respect for the applicant's rights under Article 2 of Protocol No . I . The Commission considers that this issue raises difficult questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend upon an examination of the merits . This part of the application is therefore not manifestly ill-founded and must be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been estiblisheti . 3 . The applicant has also alleged that Atticles 3, 6, and 10 of the Convention have been violated . The facts on which the applicant bases her allegations of breaches are 144
largely the same as those examined above under points I and 2 . The application is therefore also admissible in this respect . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without prejudging the merits of the case .
EN FAIT Les faits Je la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : La requÃ©rante est une ressortissante finlandaise, nÃ©e en 1919 et habitant Lidingb en SuÃ¨de . Elle a un fils adoptif, Alexandre, nÃ© en mars 1969 de parents finlandais . Elle est reprÃ©sentÃ©e devant la Commission par Me Lennan Hane, avocat Ã Stockholm . L'affaire concerne le placement du fils de la requÃ©rante Ã l'assistance publique . La lÃ©gislation suÃ©doise sur la protection de ('enfance . a) La loi de 1 960 sur la protection de ('enfance (barnvÃ¢rdslagen) D'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, il revient Ã chaque municipalitÃ© (il en existe actuellement 284 en SuÃ¨de) de favoriser l'Ã©panouissement des jeunes et, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, de fournir les conditions propres Ã leur Ã©ducation . La loi de 1960 confie cette responsabilitÃ© Ã une commission locale, la commission de protection de l'enfance (barnav9rdsnÃ mder), composÃ©e de non-spÃ©cialistes et assistÃ©e par des travailleurs sociaux . La commission de protection de l'enfance doit intervenir si, chez lui, un mineur de 18 ans est maltraitÃ© ou traitÃ© de maniÃ¨re nuisible Ã sa santÃ© physique ou mentale, ou si son dÃ©veloppement est compromis en raison de l'inaptitude de ses parents o u 145
tuteurs chargÃ©s de son Ã©ducation, ou en raison de leur incapacitÃ© Ã Ã©lever l'enfant (article 25 aÂ»* . La commission peut Ã©galement intervenir lorsqu'un mineur de 20 ans nÃ©cessite des mesures de redressement en raison de son componement dÃ©linquant, immoral ou asocial (article 25 b)) . La commission de protection de l'enfance obtient ses informations sur les sÃ©vices ou mauvais traitements Ã enfants par les membres de diverses professions sociales souvent en contact avec les enfants (travailleurs sociaux, mÃ©decins, infirrniers et enseignants), mais aussi par de simples particuliers qui ont remarquÃ© ces pratiques de mauvais traitements . La commission est Ã©galement tenue d'agir d'office, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant . DÃ¨s qu'elle est informÃ©e d'un cas Ã©ventuel de mauvais traitement, la commission doit immÃ©diatement procÃ©der Ã une enquÃªte, qui sera exhaustive et comportera des entretiens avec les personnes susceptibles de fournir informations, rapports mÃ©dicaux et rapports de visite au domicile de l'enfant . La commission doit essayer de remÃ©dier Ã la situation par des mesures prÃ©ventives (fdrebyggande Ã¢tgÃ rder) avant de recourir Ã l'assistance publique . la loi de 1960 Ã©numÃ¨re quatre de ces mesures prÃ©ventives : I) soutien (conseil, soutien financier, etc . . .) . 2) avertissement, 3) ordonnance sur les conditions de vie de l'enfant et 4) surveillance . Ce n'est que si ces mesures ne suffisent pas que la commission doit placer l'enfant Ã l'Assistance publique (article 29)** . En cas d'urgence, le prÃ©sident de la commission peut prendre les mesures nÃ©cessaires . Il prÃ©voit alors, pour dÃ©cider de la question, une rÃ©union de la commission dans les dix jours (article 11) . Selon l'article 30 de la loi de 1960, les enfants peuvent Ãªtre placÃ©s sous bonne garde pour les besoins de l'enquÃ©te, Ã condition que l'intervention prÃ©vue Ã l'article 25 soit nÃ©cessaire et que des mesures immÃ©diates soient prises pour prÃ©venir des consÃ©quences dangereuses pour l'enfant . Cette garde ne doit pas durer plus de quatre semaines .
â¢ L'article 25 x) est einsi libellÃ© :
-ta comniission de protection dc l'enfance prend les mesures prÃ©vues aux anicles 26 Ã 29 : a) si . chez lui, un mineur de 18 ans ut maltraitÃ© ou initÃ© de maniÃ¨re nuisible Ã sa saniÃ© physique ou menule uu si son dÃ©veloppement es t compromis en raison de l'inaptitudc de ses parents ou tuteurs char gÃ©s de son Ã©ducation ou en aison de leur incapacitÃ© Ã 8ever l'en(ani . â¢â¢ L'article 29 est ainsi libellÃ© :
- tc jeune doit Ã©tre pris en charge par l'assistance publique si les mesures prÃ©ventives santjugÃ©es inutiles ou si elles se sont rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©es vaines .-
La dÃ©cision de placer l'enfant Ã l'Assistance publique doit Ãªtre communiquÃ©e immÃ©diatement aux parents et Ã©galement Ã l'enfant si celui-ci a plus de 15 ans . Si les parents ne donnent pas leur consentement Ã cette dÃ©cision, l'affaire doit Ã©tre portÃ©e devant le tribunal adntinistratif rÃ©gional (lÃ«nsrÃ tten) qui statue dans les dix jours (article 24) . II peut Ãªtre fait appel de la dÃ©cision du tribunal devant la cour d'appel administrative (kammarrÃ«tten) puis devant la Cour administrative suprÃ©me (regeringsrÃ tten) . Selon la loi de 1960, l'enfant placÃ© Ã l'Assistance publique a le droit d'Ã¨tre soignÃ© et Ã©levÃ© convenablement et de recevoir l'Ã©ducation requise par ses aptitudes personnelles et par les circonstances (article 35) . L'enfant doit Ãªtre placÃ© chez des parents nourriciers ou dans un Ã©tablissement convenable . La premiÃ¨re solution est toujours prÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e lorsqu'il y a le choix . Selon l'article 41 de la loi, la commission doit dÃ©cider si les parents sont autorisÃ©s Ã voir rÃ©guliÃ¨rentent l'enfant (unigÃ ngesrÃ tt) . La coniniission dÃ©cide de l'interruption Ã©ventuelle de l'assistance publique e t du moment pour ce faire . L'assistance prend fin de toute maniÃ¨re si l'enfant atteint lÃ¢ge de dix-huit ans ou, si l'enfant a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© aprÃ¨s ses quinze ans, trois ans au plus tard aprÃ¨s le placement Ã l'assistance (article 42) .
Les dÃ©cisions de la commission sont susceptibles de recours devant les tribunaux susmemionnÃ©s, notantment dans les cas suivants : dÃ©cisions rÃ©glant les conditions de vie de l'enfant ou sa surveillance, rejetant des rÃ©clamations concernant les ordonnances de surveillance ou de placement Ã l'Assistance publique, injonctions concernant l'enlÃ¨vement de l'enfant de son foyer nourricier et dÃ©cisions concemant le droit de visite des parents . b) La loi de 1980 ponant dispasirioas spÃ©ciales sur l'assistance aux jeunes (lagen nted sÃ rskilda bestÃ«mmelser om vÃ¢rd av unga ) A panir du ler janvier 1982, c'est la loi sur les services sociaux qui a posÃ© les rÃ¨gles fondamentales de la responsabilitÃ© de la sociÃ©tÃ© vis-Ã -vis des jeunes (socialtjÃ nstlagen) . Ce texte contient donc des dispositions sur les mesures de soutien et de prÃ©vention .prises avec l'approbation et le consentement des individus concernÃ©s . Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©demment exposÃ©es sur les enquÃ©tes, les procÃ©dures de communication et de recours restent valables aprÃ¨s 1982 . Les dÃ©cisions prises en vertu de la loi de 1960 et toujours en vigueur au 31 dÃ©cembre 1981 ont Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©es comme des dÃ©cisions prises en vertu de la lÃ©gislation nouvelle, qu'il s'agisse de la loi sur les services sociaux ou de la loi portant dispositions spÃ©ciales sur l'assistance aux jeunes . 147
Ce dernier texte ne concerne que les cas dans lesquels les parents ont refusÃ© leur consentement . Selon l'article I de cette loi, le placement d'un enfant Ã l'Assistance publique peut Ãªtre dÃ©cidÃ© I) si l'absence de soins ou tout autre Ã©tat de l'enfant Ã domicile entraine un risque pour sa santÃ© ou son dÃ©veloppement, si l'enfant a moins de dix-huit ans (ce qu'on appelle une situation de milieu de vie) , ou 2) si l'enfant compromet gravement sa santÃ© ou son dÃ©veloppement par la drogue, la dÃ©linquance ou un comportement analogue, et s'il a moins de vingt ans (ce qu'on appelle une situation de comportement) . La rÃ©forme de la totalitÃ© du rÃ©gime d'assistance sociale, menÃ©e en 1982, s'est traduite Ã©galement par une restrucmration des organes responsables . Aujourd'hui, un conseil de protection sociale (socialnifmnden) dÃ©cide des questions de protection de l'enfance . Ces conseils ont la mÃ©me composition que les anciennes commissions de protection de l'enfance et leurs prÃ©sidents les m@mes pouvoirs que ceux que leur donnait la loi de 1960 . Les enquÃ¨tes menÃ©es pour beaucoup selon les mÃªmes modalitÃ©s et divers spÃ©cialistes assistent ces organes . Si le conseil de protection sociale juge nÃ©cessaire d'agir, il doit s'adresser au lribunal administratif rÃ©gional qui dÃ©cidera . La diffÃ©rence avec la loi de 1960, c'est que le conseil ne prend pas lui-mÃªme la dÃ©cision . Si le conseil ou son prÃ©sident a agi en situation d'urgence et placÃ© l'enfant Ã l'Assistance publique, ces mesures doivent Ãªtre entÃ©rinÃ©es par le tribunal dans les quinze jours . Devant le tribunal, la procÃ©dure est orale . Parents, tÃ©moins et experts assistent Ã l'audience . Parents et enfant sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s chacun par un avocat librement choisi . Le conseil doit prÃ©senter la totalitÃ© de son enquÃªte (y compris les rapports mÃ©dicaux et autres) et exposer Ã©galement un plan de traitement de l'enfant . Les dÃ©cisions du tribunal sont susceptibles d'appel devant la cour d'appel administrative . Si le prÃ©sident du conseil a pris une dÃ©cision en urgence et que le tribunal administratif rÃ©gional l'a approuvÃ©e, la dÃ©cision est susceptible de recours selon les mÃªmes modalitÃ©s . Une fois prise la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance publique, le conseil de protection sociale doit exÃ©cuter cette dÃ©cision, s'occuper des dÃ©tails pratiques (lieu de placement, type d'Ã©ducation et autre traitement Ã lui donner, etc .) . La loi exige que l'aide Ã l'enfant soit assurÃ©e de maniÃ¨re Ã lui permettre de maintenir des contacts Ã©troits avec ses parents et de leur rendre visite . Cette condition peut se traduire par une possibilitÃ© de retour de l'enfant chez ses parents pour y vivre aprÃ¨s une certaine pÃ©riode, tout en restant formellement Ã la charge de l'Assistance publique (article 11) . Le placement en foyer nourricier s'appelle dans la nouvelle loi placement familial . 148
La dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance publique est rÃ©guliÃ¨rement revue par le conseil de protection sociale, une fois par an au moins, si la dÃ©cision initiale a Ã©tÃ© prise pour des raisons de ntilieu de vie (article 41 de l'ordonnance sur les services sociaux) . Le conseil de protection sociale peut rÃ©glementer les visites faites aux parents et par eux Ã l'enfant . Il peut Ã©galement dÃ©cider de ne pas rÃ©vÃ©ler aux parents le lieu oÃ¹ se trouve l'enfant . Ces dÃ©cisions sont susceptibles de recours . Les faits propres Ã l'affaire Alexandre fut adoptÃ© Ã l'Ã ge de deux ans le 8 avril 1971 par la requÃ©rante et l'homme qui Ã©tait alors son mari, mais dÃ©s sa naissance, la requÃ©rante avait pris soin de l'enfant . L'adoption eut lieu en Finlande . En 1975, le conseil de protection sociale du district de LidingÃ´-sud (sÃ´dra sociala distriktsndmnden) dÃ©cida de placer Ã l'Assistance publique le fils adoptif de la requÃ©rante, Alexandre . Cette dÃ©cision ne fut pas suivie d'effets car la requÃ©rante aida l'enfant Ã disparaitre de l'hÃ´pital oÃ¹ il Ã©tait gardÃ© pendant l'enquÃªte . Lorsqu'il revint Ã LidingÃ en 1977, Alexandre fut placÃ© sous surveillance . Par dÃ©cision du II octobre 1979, le conseil dÃ©cida de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique conformÃ©ment aux articles 25 a) et 29 de la loi sur la protection de l'enfance . Cette dÃ©cision devait entrer en vigueur immÃ©diatement, indÃ©pendamment du fait qu'elle n'avait pas acquis force lÃ©gale . Elle Ã©tait motivÃ©e par le fait qu'Alexandre Ã©tait traitÃ© Ã la maison d'une maniÃ¨re qui nuisait Ã sa santÃ© et compromettait son dÃ©veloppement eu Ã©gard Ã l'inaptitude de la requÃ©rante Ã s'occuper de lui . La requÃ©rante n'ayant pas donnÃ© son consentement Ã l'application de cette dÃ©cision, l'affaire fut soumise au tribunal administratif rÃ©gional de Stockholm . Le 30 octobre 1979, le tribunal ordonna d'appliquer la dÃ©cision avant que le tribunal ne tranche de maniÃ©re dÃ©finitive . En novembre 1979, le conseil de protection sociale plaÃ§a Alexandre dans un hÃ´pital pour procÃ©der Ã une sÃ©rie d'enquÃ©te . Le 12 novembre cependant, l'enfant disparut de l'hÃ´pital . Il rÃ©apparut en Finlande et fit l'objet d'un examen psychiatrique au centre hospitalo-universitaire d'Helsinki . Le 14 novembre 1979, deux travailleurs sociaux et deux infirmiers suÃ©dois arrivÃ©rent Ã l'hÃ´pital pour y prendre Alexandre et le ramener en SuÃ¨de . Ces Ã©vÃ©nements firent ultÃ©rieurement l'objet d'un contrÃ´le par le MÃ©diateur, saisi de deux plaintes Ã©manant de particuliers . Le 24 mars 1982, le MÃ©diateur dÃ©clara notamment que la dÃ©cision du directeur des services sociaux de ramener Alexandre en SuÃ¨de et l'exÃ©cution de cette dÃ©cision n'Ã©taient pas conformes aux dispositions en vigueur, mais que le directeur ne pouvait nÃ©anmoins pas Ã©tre tenu pour responsable d'une dÃ©tention irrÃ©guliÃ¨re, le propos n'ayant pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©libÃ©rÃ© . Le directeur ne pouvait pas non plus Ãªtre responsable d'u n 149
abus de pouvoir car la dÃ©cision ne pouvait pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme prise au dÃ©triment d'Alexandre ni de la sociÃ©tÃ© . Le MÃ©diateur conclut que les actes abusifs du directeur des services sociaux Ã©taient excusables vu les circonstances . Le 16 janvier 1980, le t ri bunal administratif rÃ©gional tint audience dans cette affaire . La requÃ©rante et les reprÃ©sentants du conseil de protection sociale furent entendus, ainsi que deux tÃ©moins, un pour chaque panie . II ne fut donnÃ© lecture Ã l'audience que d'un seul cenificat mÃ©dical et du rapport d'un expe rt d'action sociale . Par jugement du 13 fÃ©vrier 1980, le tribunal confirrna la dÃ©cision administrative de placement d'Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique . Le jugement Ã©tait ainsi motivÃ© : . En substance, le conseil de protection sociale s'est rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© aux Ã© lÃ©ments du dossier et dÃ©clare que . dÃ¨s 1975, il avait dÃ©cidÃ© de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique . Il ne fut cependant pas possible d'appliquer la dÃ©cision puisque l'enfant disparut de l'hÃ´pital oÃ¹ il sÃ©journait pendant la durÃ©e de l'enquÃªte . Lorsqu'il revint Ã Liding& en 1977, Alexandre fut placÃ© sous surveillance . Depuis lors, le conseil a reÃ§u plusieurs rappo rt s d'oÃ¹ il ressort que l'enfant est parfois demeurÃ© sans soins et a souvent Ã©tÃ© vu en train de s'amuser dans la halle aux jeux du centre de Stockholm . En outre, la police a signalÃ© que sa mÃ¨re le cherchait souvent et qu'Ã plusieurs reprises la police l'a ramenÃ© Ã son domicile tard dans la soirÃ©e . Il apparait qu'il s'est mis Ã fumer et Ã mendier pour se procurer nourriture et distractions et qu'il lui arrive de ne pas rentrer chez lui de toute la nuit . A l'Ã©cole, on s'est inquiÃ©tÃ© du cas d'Alexandre, l'enfant ayant dit qu'on l'enfermait Ã clÃ© pour l'empÃ¨cher d'aller Ã l'Ã©cole et qu'on le battait . L'enfant n'a pas de relations amicales nonnales et se montre presque toujours agressif avec les personnes de son Ã ge . Il a souvent essayÃ© de s'enfuir de chez lui, ce qui doit Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme une maniÃ¨re de fuir un milieu de vie dÃ©sorganisÃ© et plein de contradictions . La requÃ©rante a pour l'essentiel soutenu qu'Ã son avis l'enquÃªte a Ã©tÃ© partiale . Elle reconnait certes avoir eu des problÃ¨mes avec Alexandre, notamment parce qu'il Ã©tait malmenÃ© Ã l'Ã©cole . Elle estime cependant qu'il n'est pas perturbÃ© . Elle n'est pas opposÃ©e aux mesures d'assistance des autoritÃ©s puisque, pour aider l'enfant, elle avait d'elle-mÃ¨me pris contact avec l'Ã©cole et la personne chargÃ©e de le surveiller . Ses efforts n'ont cependant pas Ã©tÃ© compris comme il le fallait . Si Alexandre s'intÃ©resse Ã la halle aux jeux, c'est depuis qu'ellemÃ¨me a travaillÃ© au centre de Stockholm . Il lui a souvent rendu visite Ã son travail et a dÃ©couvert Ã ce moment-lÃ la galerie de jeux . Il a continuÃ© Ã s'y rendre mÃªme aprÃ¨s qu'elle eut cessÃ© de travailler Ã Stockholm . Au dÃ©but, la requÃ©rant e
s'inquiÃ©tait du milieu que frÃ©quentait le garÃ§on mais aprÃ¨s avoir vu elle-mÃªme la halle en question . elle jugea ses inquiÃ©tudes exagÃ©rÃ©es . La relation qui l'unit Ã son fils est bonne et l'enfant lui confie tout, mÃ¨me lorsqu'il a fait quelque chose de dÃ©fendu . Voici en substance ce qu'a dit Mm' K ., entendue Ã la demande de la requÃ©rante : la derniÃ¨re fois qu'elle a rendu visite Ã la famille de la requÃ©rante, c'Ã©tait en juillet 197 8 . Elle a vÃ©cu avec la famille trois mois durant . Les rapports entre la mÃ¨re et le fils sont trÃ¨s chaleureux . Elle n'a jamais vu la requÃ©rante frapper Alexandre ou l'enfermer Ã clÃ© . Alexandre n'Ã©tait pas dÃ©sobÃ©issant Ã l'Ã©gard de sa mÃ¨re . Il Ã©tait comme les autres enfants, sans plus, jouant beaucoup et amenant souvent des amis Ã la maison . M . Y ., entendu Ã la demande du conseil de protection sociale a dÃ©clarÃ© en substance avoir rencontrÃ© Alexandre pour la premiÃ¨re fois Ã l'hÃ´pital oÃ¹ l'enfant sÃ©journait pendant la pÃ©riode d'enquÃªtes . AprÃ¨s quoi . Alexandre a vÃ©cu avec la famille du tÃ©moin pendant un mois avant d'Ãªtre placÃ© dans un foyer nourricier . ConsidÃ©rÃ© de son point de vue de professionnel . M . Y . estime qu'Alexandre est affectivement penurbÃ© et qu'il a le niveau d'un enfant de cinq ou six ans . Egocentrique, il possÃ¨de une identitÃ© fragile et se montre toujours trop familier . II a besoin d'Ãªtre le centre de l'intÃ©rÃªt et de sentir qu'il est aimÃ©, ce qui n'est pas normal pour un enfant prÃ©pubÃ¨re . II Ã©value mal le temps et les distances et sa notion de l'Ã©quitÃ© est trÃ¨s primitive . Il ne manifeste aucun regret lorsqu'on le trouve en train d'enfreindre des interdits . On ne peut pas lui faire confiance car il manque de la capacitÃ© voulue pour rÃ©pondre Ã une quelconque exigence . Il manque d'autocritique et exige tout le temps de faire l'objet de louanges inconditionnelles . Il vit dans un monde liniitÃ© et un monde de ntensonges . Il n'a pas eu de relations normales avec les autres enfants qui se trouvaient dans la famille Y . Bien des Ã©lÃ©ments de son comportement montrent qu'il vit une relation de symbiose avec sa mÃ¨re . Pendant son sÃ©jour dans la famille Y ., il n'a manifestÃ© aucun dÃ©sir de retourner chez sa mÃ¨re ni aucun indice de vouloir fuir bien qu'il en eÃ»t souvent la possibilitÃ© . M . Y . estime de l'intÃ©rÃ©t d'Alexandre d'Ã¨tre enlevÃ© Ã son milieu de vie . Le mÃ©decin-chef adjoint . MmÂ° H ., du service de psychiatrie de l'enfance Ã l'h6pital, dÃ©clare notamment dans un cenificat mÃ©dical qu'elle considÃ¨re Alexandre comme un garÃ§on perturbÃ© malgrÃ© un dÃ©veloppement intellecturel nonnal . Son dÃ©veloppement affectif a Ã©tÃ© perturbÃ© trÃ¨s tÃ´t et pour l'aider Ã retrouver son Ã©quilibre, il doit Ãªtre pris en charge par l'Assistance publique et placÃ© dans une famille nourriciÃ¨re, tout en bÃ©nÃ©ficiant d'une assistance thÃ©rapeutique qualifiÃ©e . L'agent du service social, M . D . a dÃ©clarÃ© dans son avis que la relation entre la requÃ©rante et Alexandre est telle qu'elle a eu une influence trÃ¨s nÃ©gative sur la santÃ© psychique de l'enfant et qu'elle compromet son Ã©panouissement . M . D . estime qu'il faut confirmer la dÃ©cision soumise au tribunal . 151
Le tribunal administratif rÃ©gional formule l'apprÃ©ciation suivante : Il ressort de l'enquÃªte que la requÃ©rante n'a pas la moindre idÃ©e des besoins de l'enfant et qu'elle est incapable de fixer Ã Alexandre des limites fermes Ã son comportement . Il ressort en outre que l'enfant manifeste des troubles graves de nature affective et un syndrome d'abandon . Cela Ã©tant et compte tenu d'autres Ã©lÃ©ments du dossier, il faut considÃ©rer comme Ã©tabli que, chez lui, Alexandre est traitÃ© d'une maniÃ¨re qui nuit Ã sa santÃ© psychique et compromet son dÃ©veloppement, sa mÃ¨re Ã©tant incapable de s'occuper de lui . Des mesures prÃ©ventives, de surveillance, notamment, ont dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© prises sans aboutir Ã redresser la situation . . Auparavant, par dÃ©cision du 23 novembre 1979, le conseil de protection sociale du district avait dÃ©cidÃ© d'Ã´ter Ã la requÃ©rante le droit de rendre visite Ã Alexandre et de ne pas rÃ©vÃ©ler Ã la mÃ©re le lieu oÃ¹ se trouvait l'enfant . Les motifs de cette dÃ©cision Ã©taient les mÃ©mes que ceux d'une dÃ©cision analogue prise le 11 octobre 1979, en mÃªme temps que celle de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique . Cependant, le 12 novembre, Alexandre Ã©tait enlevÃ© de l'hÃ´pital oÃ¹ il avait Ã©tÃ© placÃ© et il y avait tout lieu de croire que la requÃ©rante Ã©tait Ã l'origine de cet enlÃ¨vement . Alexandre fut retrouvÃ© Ã Helsinki et ramenÃ© en SuÃ¨de le 14 novembre . - La requÃ©rante fit appel de cene dÃ©cision devant le tribunal administratif rÃ©gional qui, par jugement du 6 fÃ©vrier 1981, la dÃ©bouta dans les termes suivants : Â« Le tribunal administratif rÃ©gional a tenu une audience en prÃ©sence de la requÃ©rante, .le 16 janvier 1980, dans l'affaire de placement Ã l'Assistance publique . Cela Ã©tant, compte tenu du volume des documents produits en l'espÃ¨ce, la cour estime inutile de tenir une autre audience pour trancher l'affaire . Vu l'existence de plusieurs rapports psychiatriques tant en ce qui conceme le placement Ã l'Assistance publique que la prÃ©sente affaire, le tribunal n'estime pas nÃ©cessaire de poursuivre ses investigations Ã cet Ã©gard . Du dossier concernant le placement Ã l'Assistance, il ressort qu'Alexandre manifeste des troubles affectifs graves et cela depuis son jeune Ã¢ge . Il ressort en outre que la relation entre la requÃ©rante et l'enfant est telle qu'elle a eu une influence trÃ©s nÃ©gative sur la santÃ© psychique d'Alexandre et a compromis son dÃ©veloppement . Du dossier de la prÃ©sente affaire, il resson que les parents nourriciers ont fait un travail considÃ©rable pour redresser la situation, que l'enfant Ã©volue favorablement mais que son dÃ©veloppement est lent et les rÃ©sultats fragiles . Il semble en outre qu'aprÃ¨s avoir eu connaissance du fait qu'une enquÃ¨te Ã©tait en cours sur le point de savoir si sa mÃ¨re pouvait ou non lui rendre visite, Alexandre est retombÃ© un certain temps dans son anxiÃ©tÃ©, ses difficultÃ©s de concentration, son Ã©tat soupÃ§onneux et son comportement agressif. Cela Ã©tant et vu les autres
faits apparus en l'espÃ¨ce, le tribunal estime qu'il n'est pas exclu que le dÃ©veloppement positif obtenu par les parents nourriciers soit rÃ©duit Ã nÃ©ant si l'on rÃ©vÃ¨le Ã la mÃ¨re l'adresse d'Alexandre et si elle a la possibilitÃ© de le rencontrer personnellement . A l'heure actuelle donc, l'adresse de la famille d'accueil ne doit pas Ãªtre rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e . Le tribunal estime qu'il va de soi cependant que le conseil de protection sociale examinera de maniÃ¨re suivie s'il est opportun d'Ã©tablir un contact entre Alexandre et sa mÃ¨re et si oui, sous quelle forme . â¢ La requÃ©rante fit appel devant la cour d'appel administrative de Stockholm Ã la fois de la dÃ©cision de placement d'Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique et de la dÃ©cision concemant le droit de lui rendre visite . Elle pria la cour d'autoriser un psychologue pour enfant, M . F ., Ã rencontrer Alexandre . La cour rejeta les appels en deux jugements distincts, portant tous deux la date du 18 septembre 1981 . Le jugement concernant le placenient Ã l'Assistance est ainsi motivÃ© : . La cour d'appel administrative, qui a tenu audience les 27 et 28 aoÃ»t et le I - septembre 1981, n'estime pas nÃ©cessaire d'ordonner un surcroit d'enquÃªtes concernant Alexandre avant de se prononcer . Sur la base des dÃ©clarations unanimes des tÃ©moins (le mÃ©decin-chef ajoint du service de psychiatrie de l'enfance, Mme H ., le pÃ©diatre, M . L ., deux enseignants, Mm' M . et M . L .) et des autres faits de la cause, la cour estime Ã©tabli qu'Ã l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ Alexandre a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© Ã l'assistance publique, il montrait des troubles affectifs et sociaux graves . Ces troubles peuvent s'expliquer par l'absence de traitement et de soins dont il pÃ tissait Ã la maison . L'incapacitÃ© de sa mÃ¨re Ã lui donner les soins nÃ©cessaires faisait courir un gros risque Ã la santÃ© psychique et au dÃ©veloppement gÃ©nÃ©ral d'Alexandre . A partir du 17 septembre 1979, Alexandre fut placÃ© dans une famille d'accueil . Des deux rapports Ã©tablis par le Service compÃ©tent de psychiatrie de l'enfance, dont le dernier date du 26 mai 1981, il ressort qu'Alexandre s'est dÃ©veloppÃ© et continue de se dÃ©velopper positivement dans sa famille d'accueil . Dans certains cas, il retombe affectivement parlant et ne rÃ©agit pas convenablement, ce qui est interprÃ©tÃ© comme une rÃ©surgence de ses troubles antÃ©rieurs . Il a donc encore besoin de beaucoup d'assistance pour se fixer des limites et normaliser son cotnponement . Selon l'apprÃ©ciation faite par l'hÃ´pital, il est nÃ©cessaire qu'Alexandre puisse sÃ©joumer dans le milieu stable de sa famille d'accueil pour ne pas compromettre davantage son dÃ©veloppement . On le considÃ©re encore comme trop instable pour gÃ©rer la difficultÃ© supplÃ©mentaire que reprÃ©senterait un contact personnel avec la requÃ©rante . La doctoresse M"" H . qui, prÃ¨s de deux ans plus tard . a revu Alexandre en aoÃ»t 1981, a confirmÃ© dans son tÃ©moignage l'amÃ©lioration constatÃ©e chez Alexandre . Elle a dÃ©clarÃ© en outre qu'i l
serait fatal pour la santÃ© et le dÃ©veloppement psychique d'Alexandre de le ramener maintenant chez sa mÃ¨re . Vu ces Ã©lÃ©ments et les autres faits de la cause, la cour estime dÃ©s lors que les relations sont encore telles que la santÃ© psychique d'Alexandre serait en danger et son dÃ©veloppement compromis si l'enfant devait Ã prÃ©sent retourner chez la requÃ©rante . Des mesures prÃ©ventives ne sauraient Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme suffisantes et la cour confirrne dÃ¨s lors la dÃ©cision de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique . Voici maintenant un extrait du jugement concemant le droit de visite d'Alexandre : -Alexandre, Ã prÃ©sent Ã gÃ© de douze ans, est placÃ© dans une famille d'accueil depuis le 17 dÃ©cembre 1979 . Lui-mÃªme n'a pas donnÃ© son adresse Ã la requÃ©rante ni pris aucune initiative pour la rencontrer . De l'enquÃªte sur l'affaire de placement Ã l'Assistance, notamment du tÃ©moignage du mÃ©decin-chef du service de psychiatrie de l'enfance Ã l'hÃ´pital, M'"Â° H ., et de l'enquÃªte menÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce, il resso rt qu'une initiative de visite de la pa rt de la requÃ©rante ne serait pas oppo rt une compte tenu des soins Ã donner Ã Alexandre et de son dÃ©veloppement . (La requÃ©rante) doit donc demeurer privÃ©e de son droit de visite Ã Alexandre . L'adresse de l'enfant ne doit donc pas lui Ã¨tre rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e . Â» La requÃ©rante s'est pourv ue devant la cour administrative suprÃ©me qui, par dÃ©cision du 24 fÃ©vrier 1982, refusa l'auto ri sation de fortner un pourvoi . La requÃ©rante a produit deux avis d'expe rts . Le premier, datÃ© du 9 fÃ©vri er 1981, est signÃ© d'un mÃ©decin qui affirme qu'aprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© les documents et les certificats mÃ©dicaux figurant dans le dossier, il n'est pas Ã©tabli de maniÃ¨re convaincante que le placement Ã l'Assistance publique d'Alexandre Ã©tait justifiÃ© ni fondÃ© le refus de visites de sa mÃ¨re . Le deuxiÃ¨me rapport , datÃ© du 28 aoÃ» t 1983, est signÃ© d'un professeur en psychiatrie de l'enfance . Elle dÃ©clare en bref que la sÃ©paration de la mÃ¨re et de l'enfant a entravÃ© la santÃ© du fils comme celle de la requÃ©rante . Le 8 mai 1984, Alexandre disparut de sa famille d'accueil et se trouve Ã prÃ©sent avec la requÃ©rante en Finlande . Dans un jugement du 20 juin 1984, le tribunal du district (tingsrÃ¯tt) de Stidra Roslag a nommÃ© un tuteur spÃ©cial pour Alexandre . La requÃ©rante fit appel de ce jugement devant la cour d'appel de Svea (hovrÃ¯tt) . Le IÂ°' octobre 1984, le conseil social dÃ©cida d'interrompre le placement Ã l'Assistance et d'accepter, dans la procÃ©dure de la cour d'appel de Svea, l'annulatio n 154
du jugement du tribunal de district en date du 20 juin 1984 . Le conseil dÃ©clarait notamment : Â« Le conseil constate qu'Alexandre a encore besoin de l'assistance spÃ©ciale qui motivait Ã l'Ã©poque la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance publique . Il estime Ã©galement que, dans des circonstances normales, un tuteur spÃ©cial aiderait Ã apporter cette assistance . Cependant, Alexandre Ã©tant dÃ©sormais en Finlande, le conseil est privÃ© en fait de la possibilitÃ© de pourvoir effectivement Ã ses besoins . Les mesures contraignantes susceptibles d'Ãªtre utilisÃ©es sont considÃ©rÃ©es comme produisant un effet contraire Ã celui qui est recherchÃ© . Du reste, il est clair que le tuteur spÃ©cial ne saurait dans ces conditions remplir sa tÃ¢che de maniÃ¨re adÃ©quate, la requÃ©rante Ã©tant totalement opposÃ©e Ã toute forme de coopÃ©ration . Aussi, la poursuite de l'Assistance publique au titre de l'article 1 par . 1 de la loi portant dispositions spÃ©ciales sur la protection des jeunes n'ayant dÃ©sormais qu'un caractÃ¨re purement formel, il convient d'annuler cette dÃ©cision . Pour la mÃªme raison, le conseil estime qu'il ne doit pas maintenir son idÃ©e de dÃ©signer un tuteur . Dans son apprÃ©ciation, le conseil a Ã©galement tenu compte du fait qu'Alexandre a maintenant plus de quinze ans et que, dans le dernier entretien, contrairement Ã ses dÃ©clarations prÃ©cÃ©dentes, il a exprimÃ© le dÃ©sir de demeurer dans les conditions oÃ¹ il se trouve actuellement . â¢ GRIEFS La requÃ©rante se plaint de ce que les autoritÃ©s suÃ©doises l'ont soumise, ainsi que son fils, Ã un traitement inhumain . Elle affirme que la raison majeure qui a inspirÃ© la dÃ©cision de la sÃ©parer de son fils est qu'elle avait Ã©crit des articles critiques sur le systÃ©me social suÃ©dois . Elle affirme qu'elle et son fils ont fait ainsi l'objet de reprÃ©sailles . La requÃ©rante allÃ¨gue une violation des articles 3, 6, 8 et 10 de la Convention, ainsi que de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel .
PROCÃDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N La requÃ©te a Ã©tÃ© introduite le 10 avril 1981 et n'a Ã©tÃ© poursuivie qu'en septembre 1983 . Elle a Ã©tÃ© enregistrÃ©e le 7 septembre 1983 . Le 14 mars 1984, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© de communiquer la requÃªte au Gouvemement et de demander Ã ce dernier ses observations Ã©crites sur sa recevabilitÃ© et son bien-fondÃ© . Le Gouvemement a soumis ses observations par lettre du 25 mai 1984 et la requÃ©rante a prÃ©sentÃ© les siennes dans une lettre datÃ©e du 13 juillet 1984 . La requÃ©rante a fourni des observations complÃ©mentaires les 28 septembre 1984 et 14 avril 1985 .
Le 12 octobre 1984, la Commission a accordÃ© Ã la requÃ©rante le bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'assistance judiciaire . Le 7 dÃ©cembre 1984, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© d'inviter les parties Ã une audience sur la recevabilitÃ© et le bien-fondÃ© de l'affaire . A l'audience, qui s'est tenue le 14 mai 1985, les parties Ã© taient reprÃ©sentÃ©es comme suit : Pour le Gotrvernemen t M . Hans Corell, Ambassadeur, SecrÃ©taire GÃ©nÃ©ral adjoint aux affaires juridiques et consulaires, MinistÃ¨re des Affaires Ã©trangÃ res, agen t M . Staffan Duhs, Conseiller, MinistÃ¨re des Affaires Ã©trangÃ¨res, conseil M'"0 Gertrud Holmquist, Conseillerjuridique, MinistÃ¨re de la SantÃ© et des Affaires sociales, consei l Mm' lise Wetter, Conseiller juridique, municipalitÃ© de Lidingb, conseil Pour la requÃ©rante Me Lennart Hane, avoca t La requÃ©rante assistait Ã©galement Ã l'audience .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIES A . Le Gouvernemen t Le Gouvemement formule d'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale les commentaires suivants sur toutes les affaires d'Assistance publique en instance devant la Commission . Les faits sur lesquels se fonde une dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance sont exposÃ©s dans le jugement du tribunal . Cette dÃ©cision prend assise sur les Ã©lÃ©ments produits Ã l'audience et sur les autres informations versÃ©es au dossier . Autrement dit, il n'y a en principe pas d'autre maniÃ¨re d'expliquer les faits sur lesquels se fonde une dÃ©cision ou un jugement que de renvoyer Ã la dÃ©cision elle-mÃªme ou au jÃ»gement . On peut ajouter que, les dÃ©cisions et jugements de ce genre Ã©tant publics, il peut arriver que le tribunal Ã©vite intentionnellement de trop entrer dans les dÃ©tails pour ne pas exposer inutilement l'intÃ©ressÃ© . La requÃ©rante a formulÃ© des allÃ©gations gÃ©nÃ©rales trÃ¨s graves sur les raisons pour lesquelles les enfants sont placÃ©s dans des familles nourriciÃ©res en SuÃ¨de . Le Gouvernement souligne que la lÃ©gislation en question a pour seul but de protÃ©ger les droits des enfants qui ont besoin de soutien et de protection . Il renvoie Ã certains chiffres publiÃ©s par le Bureau suÃ©dois des statistiques (statistiska centralbyrÃ¢n) concernant les cas de placement aux termes de la loi de 1980 et soutient que ce document fait ressortir le caractÃ¨re fallacieux des chiffres avancÃ©s par la requÃ©rante . 156
a) Les faifs Sur la genÃ©se et les faits ayant abouti Ã la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance, le Gouvemement renvoie aux jugements rendus par le tribunal administratif rÃ©gional les 13 fÃ©vrier 1980 et 6 fÃ©vrier 1981, aux deux arrÃ¨ts prononcÃ©s par la cour d'appel administrative le 18 septembre 1981 et Ã l'arrÃªt de la Cour suprÃªme administrative en date du 24 fÃ©vrier 1982 . II renvoie Ã©galement Ã l'enquÃªte du MÃ©diateur et Ã sa dÃ©cision du 24 mars 1982 . Le Gouvernement rÃ©sunte comme suit les faits qui ont abouti Ã la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance publique : Alexandre Ã©tait laissÃ© Ã l'abandon . Il passait une grande partie de son temps dans le centre de Stockholm oÃ¹ on l'a vu mendier et frÃ©quenter la halle auxjeux . Sa mÃ¨re a parfois fait appel Ã la police pour l'aider Ã retrouver son fils . Alexandre se montrait agressif vis-Ã -vis des Ã©coliers de son Ã ge . Il a prÃ©tendu qu'on l'empÃªchait d'aller Ã l'Ã©cole et qu'on le battait Ã la maison . La relation qu'il entretenait avec sa mÃ©re Ã©tait jugÃ©e nuisible Ã son dÃ©veloppement . Les mesures prÃ©ventives de surveillance n'avaient eu aucun effet . Les documents de la prÃ©sente affaire Ã©tant trÃ¨s volumineux, il n'est pas possible au Gouvemement de prÃ©senter tous les aspects du dossier Ã la Commission . Le Gouvemement prie donc la Commission de dÃ©lÃ©guer un ou plusieurs de ses membres pour examiner le dossier . Le Gouvernement ajoute que l'adoption d'Alexandre a eu lieu en Finlande le 8 avril 1971 . Or, la requÃ©rante et son mari vivaient Ã LidingÃ¼ en SuÃ¨de depuis 1963 . Il ressort du dossier qu'ils ont dÃ©mÃ©nagÃ© en Finlande pendant une courte pÃ©riode en 1971 . Comme la requÃ©rante ne rÃ©ponait pas aux convocations du centre de protection de l'enfance, un agent de la commission de protection de l'enfance s'est rendu au domicile de la requÃ©rante en fÃ©vrier 1972 . 11 y ful malmenÃ© par l'intÃ©ressÃ©e qui prÃ©tendit Ãªtre de dix ans plus jeune et que l'enfant Ã©tait le sien . Le cas d'Alexandre fut examinÃ© Ã diverses reprises par les Services sociaux de Lidingb, la niunicipalitÃ© ayant reÃ§u des rapports inquiÃ©tants d'un mÃ©decin et de la police . Selon la police . Alexandre avait Ã plusieurs reprises quittÃ© son domicile en 1973 . Les Services sociaux ouvrirent une enquÃªte . Cependant, selon un examen fait par un psychiatre pour enfants en octobre 1973, il n'y avait pas lieu, du point de vue mental, de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique . En juin 1974, la police alerta Ã nouveau les Services sociaux car la requÃ©rante avait Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ©e pour incitation Ã faux tÃ©ntoignage . La commission de protection sociale envisagea derechef des mesures en aoÃ»t 1974, mais sans en juger aucune nÃ©cessaire . Alexandre frÃ©quentait alors une Ã©cole matemelle oÃ¹ il Ã©tait considÃ©rÃ© comme un enfant perturbÃ© et agressif . Il ne savait pas son nom, ce qui inquiÃ©tait ses institutrices qui faisaient de leur mieux pou r 157
l'aider. La maÃ®tresse prÃ©tend avoir eu fort Ã faire en raison de conflits avec la requÃ©rante . A cene Ã©poque, la requÃ©rante vivait avec un autre homme, M . H ., censÃ© habiter la maison en mÃªme temps que le mari, mais la chose n'est pas claire . De fait, Alexandre Ã©tait alors Ã©levÃ© par la requÃ©rante et par cet homme, un Ã©tudiant de vingtsix ans . Le 26 juin 1975, deux des voisins de la requÃ©rante signal8rent les conditions de vie d'Alexandre Ã la commission de protection sociale . Les Services de protection de l'enfance Ã©taient trÃ¨s inquiets pour l'enfant et les voisins acceptÃ¨rent de garder le contact avec la commission . Il s'avÃ©ra qu'Alexandre avait souvent appelÃ© les voisins au tÃ©lÃ©phone, en pleurant et disant que sa mÃ¨re Ã©tait absente ou qu'elle dormait et qu'il ne pouvait pas la rÃ©veiller . Le garÃ§on se rendait souvent chez les voisins oÃ¹ il lui arrivait de rester de huit heures du matin Ã dix heures du soir . Il Ã©tait parfois bizarrement vÃªtu et de maniÃ¨re insuffisante . Il avait peur de rentrer chez lui et il demandait alors aux voisins de rester chez eux lorsque la requÃ©rante, son mari ou l'Ã©tudiant l'appelaient . Deux jeunes filles exprim8rent Ã©galement leur inquiÃ©tude aprÃ¨s Ãªtre restÃ©es dans la famille de la requÃ©rante, la premiÃ¨re de janvier Ã juin, la deuxiÃ¨me en juin et juillet . Le 29 aoÃ»t 1975, la commission de protection sociale dÃ©cida de faire examiner Alexandre . Son milieu de vie Ã©tait bizarre, les rappons Ã©tablis par l'Ã©cole matemelle faisaient Ã©tat d'une grave inadaptation . les rapports Ã©tablis pendant l'Ã©tÃ© faisaient mention de troubles affectifs et montraient que l'enfant Ã©tait battu, enfermÃ© Ã clÃ© et qu'on l'obligeait Ã s'alimenter dans un milieu complÃ©tement dÃ©sorganisÃ© . Lorsqu'on ramenait l'enfant Ã la maison, il se produisait des scÃ©nes de terreur et on parla d'â¢agression psychique - . On interdit aux parents de voir Alexandre, qu'un policier vint chercher le 2 septembre 1975 . L'enfant fut d'abord placÃ© dans un foyer pour enfants puis le 9 septembre 1975, transfÃ©rÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital de Danderyd, Ã la demande du Dr . G .K . qui l'examina . Les parents furent autorisÃ©s Ã voir l'enfant Ã l'hÃ´pital . Le Dr . K . dÃ©clara qu'Alexandre Ã©tait perturbÃ© dans son dÃ©vetoppement et que son Ã©volution psychologique Ã©tait gravement menacÃ©e . Comme on ne pouvait espÃ©rer une amÃ©lioration de son cadre de vie dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, le mÃ©decin recommanda de placer l'enfant Ã l'Assistance dans une famille d'accueil et d'interdire les visites des parents . Le 26 septembre 1975, le conseil social du district de Lidingti dÃ©cida le placement Ã l'Assistance publique mais cette dÃ©cision ne fut jamais apptiquÃ©e, car le 23 septembre 1975, Alexandre fut enlevÃ© de l'hÃ´pital et demeura introuvable . On pense que l'Ã©tudiant, qui s'Ã©tait rendu Ã l'hÃ´pital en mÃªme temps que la requÃ©rante et son mari, s'Ã©tait enfui par une fenÃªtre avec l'enfant . Le 7 octobre 1975, la police retrouva en Finlande la requÃ©rante qui prÃ©tendit qu'Alexandre se trouvait Ã Munich . Il semble que la requÃ©rante et son mari soient revenus Ã LidingÃ¼ en 1977 . La dÃ©cision de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique fut rapportÃ©e, la requÃ©rante et son mari se dÃ©clarant disposÃ©s Ã coopbrer avec les Services sociaux . Finalement, cependant, ils n'ont jamais coopÃ©rÃ© . Le 12 janvier 1978, les Ã©poux divorcÃ¨rent et la requÃ©rante se vit confier la garde juridique d'Alexandre .158
A l'automne 1978, les Services sociaux prirent contact avec l'Ã©cole d'Alexandre . L'institutrice Ã©tait inquiÃ¨te car l'enfant Ã©tait agressif et manifestait un comportement anormal dans certaines situations . Il avait des difficultÃ©s avec ses camarades et se livrait Ã des accÃ¨s de fureur . Le 13 septembre 1979, le Dr . G .K . adressa une note officielle au conseil de protection de l'enfance Ã propos de la famille de la requÃ©rante . II Ã©tait venu Ã sa connaissance qu'Alexandre s'Ã©tait mis Ã fumer et avait commis des vols, avait Ã©tÃ© enfermÃ© Ã clÃ© Ã la maison et battu . Le mÃªme jour, la police de Lidingti signala qu'Alexandre avait Ã plusieurs reprises dans les derniers mois Ã©tÃ© portÃ© disparu . La mÃ¨re avait signalÃ© elle-mÃªme la chose, disant Ã la police qu'Alexandre s'intÃ©ressait beaucoup aux billards Ã©lectriques et aimait Ã traÃ®ner dans la halle aux jeux, pour y jouer au flipper et y mendier argent et cigarettes . Selon les services de protection sociale, la requÃ©rante encourageait mÃ¨me Alexandre Ã s'y rendre . Elle y Ã©tait une fois restÃ©e avec lui pour se convaincre que le milieu n'Ã©tait pas nuisible Ã l'enfant . Alexandre avait alors dix ans . Le 11 octobre 1979, la commission de protection de l'enfance dÃ©cida une fois encore de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique . L'enfant fut d'abord mis en observation dans le service de psychiatrie infantile de l'hÃ´pital Karolinska de Stockholm . Il disparut de l'hÃ´pital dans des circonstances obscures et fut amenÃ© le lendemain au centre hospitalo-universitaire d'Helsinki . Cependant, vu sa nationalitÃ© suÃ©doise . Alexandre fut remis Ã deux agents des Services sociaux et deux infirrniers venus de SuÃ¨de le lendemain, qui le ramenÃ¨rent Ã l'hÃ´pital de Stockholm . AprÃ¨s un sÃ©jour Ã l'hÃ´pital Karolinska et auprÃ¨s d'un psychologue, Alexandre fut transfÃ©rÃ© dans une famille d'accueil en dehors de la ville de StrÃ ngnÃ s, Ã une centaine de kilomÃ©tres de Stockholm . Alexandre resta chez ses parents nourriciers M . S .S . et MmÂ° M .A . du 17 dÃ©cembre 1979 jusqu'en mai 1984, soit prÃ¨s de cinq ans . Sur les motifs de placement d'Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique, le Gouvernement dÃ©clare que la commission de protection sociale s'est fondÃ©e sur un certificat mÃ©dical du Dr. A .N . en date du 4 octobre 1979, ainsi libellÃ© : - En dÃ©pit d'un dÃ©veloppement intellecturel inhabituel, Alexandre est un enfant perturbÃ© . Son dÃ©veloppement affectif a Ã©tÃ© perturbÃ© dÃ¨s son jeune Ã ge et pour l'aider Ã se dÃ©velopper normalement, l'enfant devrait Ãªtre placÃ© Ã l'Assistance publique dans une famille nourriciÃ©re avec possibilitÃ© d'assistance thÃ©rapeutique qualifiÃ©e . . Le Gouvernement renvoie Ã©galement aux motifs Ã©noncÃ©s dans les dÃ©cisions du tribunal adntinistratif rÃ©gional et de la cour d'appel administrative . Le Gouvernement soutient que - vu les constatations faites par les tribunaux, qui ont pu se forger une opinion aprÃ¨s avoir entendu les inlÃ©ressÃ©s, notamment la requÃ©rante - il est indÃ©niable qu'il existait d'excellentes raisons de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance .
Quant aux conditions faites Ã Alexandre dans sa famille d'accueil, le Gouvernement fait valoir ce qui suit : le foyer d'accueil est situÃ© sur une ile (Sela6n) sur le lac de MÃ laren Ã quelque 110 kms de Stockholm . Lorsque Alexandre y arriva, il parlait trÃ¨s mal le suÃ©dois et n'avait pas de langue vÃ©ritable . Pour exercer son suÃ©dois, il fut dÃ©cidÃ© dans cette famille qu'Alexandre tiendrait un journal afin de pratiquer la langue . L'idÃ©e Ã©tait que les parents nourriciers puisse lire cejoumal afin de suivre les progrÃ¨s linguistiques de l'enfant . Au dÃ©but, Alexandre avait trÃ¨s peur car il Ã©tait habituÃ© Ã dormir dans le lit de sa mÃ¨re . Selon la requÃ©rante elle-mÃªme, â¢ Alexandre ne pouvait pas s'endorrnir si elle n'Ã©tait pas auprÃ¨s de lui . . Le garÃ§on Ã©tait trÃ¨s inquiet et perturbÃ© . Il donna fort Ã faire Ã ses parents nourriciers en allumant de petits incendies et en faisant des fugues nocturnes . Il Ã©tait vÃ©ritablement dÃ©sÃ©quilibrÃ© et pendant les six premiers mois, on ne pouvait pas le laisser seul . Il fut dÃ©cidÃ©, en accord avec lui, qu'il occuperait finalement la chambre situÃ©e derriÃ©re celle des parents nourriciers, ce qui permettait Ã ces derniers de s'apercevoir de ses sorties nocturnes ou d'entendre ses appels Ã l'aide . La situation Ã©tait assez difficile pour les parents nourriciers car Alexandre ne pouvait pas Ãªtre laissÃ© seul . Cependant, aprÃ¨s de rudes efforts, ils rÃ©ussirent Ã lui faire accepter d'aller Ã l'Ã©cole, ce qui se passa assez bien . Alexandre passait beaucoup de temps avec son pÃ¨re nourricier . Ensemble ils constmisirent un bateau et l'enfant rÃ©vÃ©la alors ses talents de travailleur manuel . Plus tard, il dÃ©clara qu'il voulait Ã©tre menuisier ou enseignant dans le bois . La famille menait une vie familiale ordinaire et faisait sorties et petits voyages . Il y avait Ã la maison des animaux vis-Ã -vis desquels Alexandre se montra cmel au dÃ©but mais petit Ã petit s'habitua Ã ne pas l'Ã©tre . Dans la famille d'accueil, des entretiens eurent lieu concemant les rÃ¨gles des relations avec autrui et finalement, Alexandre se fit des amis parmi les voisins et les camarades de classe . Chaque fois qu'on lui demandait s'il .voulait voir sa mÃ¨re ou entrer en contact avec elle, il prÃ©fÃ©rait attendre, disant : -elle ne cherche qu'Ã me jouer des toursÂ» . Le pÃ¨re nourricier pensait qu'Alexandre devrait nÃ©anmoins voir sa mÃ¨re et alla la voir pour organiser un entretien, mais Alexandre s'y refusa . L'enfant n'essaya jamais de contacter sa mÃ¨re . Comme elle le recherchait dans tout le pays, il dut frÃ©quenter l'Ã©cole sous le nom de ses parents nourriciers, ce qu'Alexandre prÃ©fÃ©rait, semble-t-il . Cependant, Ã cause d'une erreur commise par le bureau de psychiatrie pour enfants- la mÃ¨re dÃ©couvrit oÃ¹ se trouvait Alexandre . Alors, parents nourriciers, voisins, parents d'Ã©lÃ¨ves et personnel de l'Ã©cole d'Alexandre furent persÃ©cutÃ©s par des appels tÃ©lÃ©phoniques Ã©manant d'une femme . Tout comme la requÃ©rante, cette femme parlait un dialecte finnois et prÃ©tendait reprÃ©senter diverses autoritÃ©s . S'agissant des allÃ©gations selon lesquelles Alexandre n'aurait pas pu aller Ã l'Ã©cole Ã cause de ses parents nourriciers, le Gouvemement fournit les renseignements suivants .
Alexandre est arrivÃ© dans sa famille d'accueil en 1979 . Pendant le trimestre du printemps 1980, le psychiatre pour enfants d'Eskilstuna, la ville voisine, qui s'occupait d'Alexandre dans sa famille d'accueil, exprima l'avis qu'il ne pouvait pas frÃ©quemer immÃ©diatement l'Ã©cole mais devait plutÃ´t recevoir un enseignement Ã la maison . L'Ã©cole aussi bien que la famille firent alors de grands efforts pour trouver des ouvrages adaptÃ©s Ã la pauvretÃ© du langage d'Alexandre . Au dÃ©but du trimestre de l'automne 1980, on estima qu'Alexandre avait atteint le niveau de la classe de cinquiÃ©me . normal pour un enfant de douze ans . Il fut donc envoyÃ© Ã l'Ã©cole mais toujours avec des cours Ã domicile . Le maÃ®tre d'Ã©cole lui donnait un enseignement distinci des autres enfants car on estimait qu'Alexandre ne pouvait pas s'adapter Ã l'enseignement de groupe . Au printenips de 1981, Alexandre devint un Ã©colier ordinaire . Il frÃ©quenta la classe de sixiÃ¨me pendant le premier trintestre de 1981 et les trimestres d'automne et de printemps de 1981 / 1982 . C'Ã©tait un Ã©lÃ¨ve moyen qui progressait malgrÃ© quelques problÃ¨mes avec cenains condisciples . Au dÃ©but du trimestre d'automne 1982, il devait entrer en septiÃ¨me- autrement dit changer d'Ã©tablissement . La nouvelle Ã©cole se trouvait dans une autre ville, Mariefred . Le trajet Ã©tait plus long, niais le problÃ¨me Ã©tait le mÃ©me pour les autres Ã©lÃ¨ves . En SuÃ¨de, le passage de la sixiÃ¨me Ã la septi8me demande gÃ©nÃ©ralement des efforts Ã tous les Ã©l8ves . Il s'avÃ©ra qu'Alexandre fit panie d'un groupe d'Ã©lÃ¨ves qui se mit Ã frÃ©quenter la halle aux jeux, commettre des larcins, etc . . . Les parents nourriciers Ã©taient tr8s inquiets et ils firent, avec les professeurs, de grands efforts pour redresser la situation . Les services scolaires dÃ©cidÃ¨rent qu'Alexandre recevrait un enseignement Ã domicile pendant le trimestre de printemps 1983 . La dÃ©cision fut prise par les autoritÃ©s scolaires, l'idÃ©e Ã©tant qu'Alexandre devait entrer dans un autre Ã©tablissement au dÃ©but du trimestre d'automne de 1983 . II entra alors dans une Ã©cole de StrÃ ngnÃ s, oÃ¹ il resta tout le trimestre d'automne et y obtint d'assez bons rÃ©sultats . En dÃ©cembre 1983 cependant, une chose trÃ¨s triste se produisit : Alexandre aurait dit Ã un camarade que son pÃ¨re nourricier l'avait battu avec une chaÃ®ne . Il y eut une enqu@te et un mÃ©decin ou une infirmiÃ¨re examinÃ¨rent l'enfant . Finalement, il n'y avait rien de vrai dans les accusations d'Alexandre et, selon les psychiatres, l'intÃ©ressÃ© perdit la face devant ses camarades . On constata alors Ã l'Ã©cole la disparition de certains objets et le p8re nourricier trouva chez lui une trousse d'Ã©colier qui n'appanenait Ã personne de la maison . Les parents nourriciers hÃ©sitaient beaucoup Ã renvoyer Alexandre Ã l'Ã©cole pendant le trimestre de printemps et les personnes qui suivaient l'affaire estimÃ¨rent qu'il fallait trouver un arrangement pour le trimestre de printemps . L'Ã©cole suggÃ©ra des solutions paniculiÃ¨res d'enseignement, mais le pÃ¨re nourricier pensait qu'il valait niieux donner un certain enseignement Ã la maison . C'est ce qui fut finalement dÃ©cidÃ© . Pendant le printemps, il y eut des entretiens Ã propos d'un â¢ programme de rÃ©unification familialeÂ», proposÃ© par un psychologue M . S .H . Cependant, Alexandre persistait Ã ne pas vouloir rencontrer sa mÃ¨re et refusa plusieurs fois de s'associer Ã ce processus de rÃ©unification . Dans sa famille d'accueil, Alexandre disposait d'une bicyclette et plus tard, d'une petite mobylette . De temps Ã autre, il allait en vÃ©lo Ã l'Ã©cole et il lui arrivai t 161
de passer le week-end chez des camarades . Plus tard, il se dÃ©plaÃ§a librement avec sa mobylette . Il participa Ã des camps de voile et voyagea Ã l'Ã©tranger avec ses parents nourriciers . Il visita Ã©galement Stockholm avec son pÃ¨re nourricier . En rÃ©ponse aux allÃ©gations selon lesquelles Alexandre aurait Ã©tÃ© prisonnier dans sa famille nourriciÃ¨re, le Gouvernement fait valoir qu'il semblerait plutÃ´t qu'Alexandre ait choisi de rester avec ses parents nourriciers parce qu'il s'y sentait en sÃ©curitÃ© . En mai 1984, Alexandre fut entendu par un tribunal de district Ã propos d'une audience sur la garde juridique de l'enfant . II ressort des transcriptions des bandes produites par la requÃ©rante elle-mÃªme qu'Alexandre se sentait tout Ã fait chez lui auprÃ¨s de ses parents nourriciers et ne voulait pas revenir avec elle . Le Gouvernement renvoie au jugement rendu par la tribunal de district le 20 juin 1984 et aux dÃ©clarations qui y figurent . Il relÃ©ve qu'aprÃ©s des audiences qui ont durÃ© six jours, le tribunal de de district en est venu Ã la conclusion que la requÃ©rante n'Ã©tait pas le tuteur qui convenait pour Alexandre . Il estima que les critiques formulÃ©es par l'intÃ©ressÃ©e contre les autoritÃ©s Ã©taient des exagÃ©rations grossiÃ¨res . Par contre, il souscrivait partiellement Ã l'avis selon lequel certaines mesures et dÃ©libÃ©rations Ã©taient beaucoup moins avisÃ©es . Lesjuges affirmÃ©rent notamment n'avoir pas compris pourquoi les autoritÃ©s ont parfois refusÃ© Ã des experts l'autorisation de voir Alexandre . Cependant, au principal, le tribunal dÃ©clara : â¢ On comprend . en se mettant Ã la place de la requÃ©rante, qu'elle veuille recourir Ã des mÃ©thodes inopportunes pour rÃ©cupÃ©rer son fils et on ne saurait nier que son amour pour l'enfant soit grand . A plusieurs reprises, cependam- elle a montrÃ© son incapacitÃ© Ã comprendre que son fils, psychiquement malmenÃ©, devait bÃ©nÃ©ficier de calme pour Ãªtre examinÃ© et soignÃ© . Plusieurs des personnes entendues dans cette affaire ont exprimÃ© l'idÃ©e que la requÃ©rante est 'obsÃ©dÃ©e' par l'idÃ©e de rÃ©cupÃ©rer son fils et que ses efforts ont Ã©tÃ© 'intellectualisÃ©s' au point de devenir une idÃ©e plus qu'un souci rÃ©el pour l'enfant : Cette opinion va de pair avec d'autres observations selon lesquelles la requÃ©rante Ã©tait auparavant plus soucieuse des capacitÃ©s intellectuelles de son ftls que de sa sÃ©curitÃ© et de son Ã©tat d'esprit . Le tribunal a peine Ã imaginer que, dans ce contexte, la requÃ©rante puisse Ãªtre la personne convenable pour assurer la garde de l'enfant au cas oÃ¹ celle-ci lui serait accordÃ©e . . Alexandre a disparu de son foyer d'accueil en mai 1984 et, pour autant que le sache le Gouvemement, il vit Ã prÃ©sent avec sa mÃ¨re en Finlande . Dans une dÃ©cision prise le I - octobre 1984, la commission de protection sociale a dÃ©cidÃ© de mettre fin Ã la prise en charge d'Alexandre par l'administration et d'accepter devant la cour d'appel de Svea l'annulation du jugement du tribunal de district en date du 20 juin 1984 concernant la garde . Le Gouvernement renvoie aux motifs exposÃ©s dans la dÃ©cision de la conunission sociale .
b) Recevabi(itÃ© et bien-fondÃ© Le Gouvernement rÃ©serve sa position en ce qui concerne les piÃ¨ces produites par la requÃ©rante le 14 avril 1985 . Le Gouvernement n'a pas d'objection Ã la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te quant au respect de la rÃ¨gle des sLr mois et de la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des recours inrentes sur les points litigieux au regard de l'article 8 . De l'avis du Gouvemement, la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance, ainsi que celle de mettre Alexandre sous bonne garde pendant l'enquÃªte, Ã©taient conformes Ã la loi de 1960 sur la protection de l'enfance et justifiÃ©es Ã©galement au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention . Il en va de mÃªme de la dÃ©cision de refuser Ã la requÃ©rante le droit de rendre visite Ã son fils . Dans ce contexte, le Gouvemement renvoie Ã plusieurs dÃ©cisions de la Commission, notamment celles concernant les requÃ©tes No 6854/74 (D .R . 7 p . 81) et No 8924/80 (D .R . 24 p . 183) . La Commission a constamment dÃ©clarÃ© que la dÃ©cision de retirer un enfant Ã ses parents, et de le placer Ã l'Assistance publique est une ingÃ©rence dans le droit garanti par l'article 8 de la Convention . Mais elle a Ã©galement dÃ©clarÃ© que les circonstances de l'affaire, la situation de l'enfant et les rÃ©sultats de l'enquÃªte peuvent montrer que les dÃ©cisions des autoritÃ©s sont justifiÃ©es, au regard du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8, par la nÃ©cessitÃ© de veiller Ã la santÃ© de l'enfant . S'agissant de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 3, le Gouvernement conteste qu'il y ait eu mÃ©connaissance de cet anicle . Il renvoie notamment Ã l'enquÃªte menÃ©e par le MÃ©diateur . Il soutient qu'au demeurant, ce grief est irrecevable pour dÃ©faut d'Ã©puisement des recours intemes . Il apparait en effet que la requÃ©rante n'a mÃªme pas signalÃ© ses griefs Ã la police . c) Conclusion Le Gouvemement estime que la requÃ¨te doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable et que, sur le fond, il n'y a pas eu violation de la Convention .
B . La requÃ©rant e La requÃ©rante affirme qu'elle s'est occupÃ©e d'Alexandre dÃ¨s sa naissance mais qu'il lui a fallu quelques annÃ©es avant de pouvoir l'adopter fonnellement . Ce M . M .H ., dont parle le Gouvernement, a vÃ©cu avec la famille de la requÃ©rante et a Ã©tÃ© en partie Ã©levÃ© par elle . Son mari a quittÃ© le domicile conjugal en 1973, mais le divorce n'a Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ© qu'en 1978 . C'est Ã la fin de janvier 1984 que la requÃ©rante a appris l'adresse tenue jusquelÃ secrÃ¨te de la famille dans laquelle Alexandre Ã©tait placÃ© depuis 1979 .
La requÃ©rante soutient qu'auparavant, la lÃ©gislation suÃ©doise s'appuyait sur un droit Ã©crit assorti de dÃ©finitions claires et de descriptions trÃ¨s prÃ©cises sur le droit de l'Etat de s'ingÃ©rer dans les droits de l'individu . S'agissant des enfants et de la famille, deux changements se sont produits qui ont eu des consÃ©quences dÃ©sastreuses pour les droits de l'individu . PremiÃ¨rement, il existe aujourd'hui un langage totaleinent nouveau, tout un arsenal de termes et une foule d'experts qui en sont les interprÃ¨tes exclusifs . Le droit de la famille et les droits fondamentaux de l'enfant de vivre avec ses parents Ã la maison ont Ã©tÃ© radicalement modifiÃ©s en 1972 et 1973 . Point n'a Ã©tÃ© besoin de changer la loi, il suffisait d'un cas type pour dÃ©cider qu'un enfant serait enlevÃ© Ã ses parents uniquement pour problÃ¨mes â¢affectifsâ¢ . Par la suite, il est devenu trÃ¨s difficile aux parents et aux enfants de dÃ©fendre leurs rapports mutuels . La requÃ©rante soutient que, dans ce contexte, il est fallacieux de dire que les critÃ¨res sont restÃ©s dans la loi de 1980 les mÃªmes que ceux de la loi de 1960 . Dans le nouveau systÃ¨me suÃ©dois en effet, les droits ne jouent aucun rdle . Les hommes de loi ne peuvent pas aider leurs clients et les tribunaux sont entiÃ¨rement aux mains des experts . Or, tous ces experts sont rÃ©munÃ©rÃ©s par l'Etat, ce qui leur confÃ©re le caracti!re d'experts officiels, qui ne sont accessibles ni aux parents ni aux avocats . En pratique, la description forrnelle que le Gouvernement donne du systÃ¨me suÃ©dois est exacte : il existe une foule de droits formels, mais aucun droit matÃ©riel . Aucune rÃ¨gle stricte ne protÃ©ge l'unitÃ© famille-enfant . Vous n'avez que le droit formel de porter l'affaire en justice dans tous les cas . Etre parent nourricier en SuÃ¨de est sans doute l'entreprise la plus rentable . En l'espÃ¨ce, l'administration versait chaque mois au pÃ¨re nourricier environ 8 .000 couronnes suÃ©doises, dont la moitiÃ© n'Ã©tait pas imposable . Comme la famille d'accueil gardait simultanÃ©ment deux ou trois autres enfants, les parents nourriciers avaient un revenu mensuel de 32 Ã 35 .000 couronnes suÃ©doises, dont la moitiÃ© nonimposable . Le Gouvemement renvoie au dossier d'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale pour Ã©tayer les motifs des dÃ©cisions prises au sujet d'Alexandre . Ce faisant, il dÃ©nie en pratique Ã la requÃ©rante le droit de rÃ©pondre aux accusations qu'il formule . Le dossier contient notamment deux documents rÃ©digÃ©s par des travailleurs sociaux, l'un en septembre 1975, l'autre en octobre 1979 . C'est sur la foi de ces documents que la commission de protection sociale de LidingÃ¼ a dÃ©cidÃ© de sÃ©parer Alexandre de la requÃ©rante et c'est Ã©galement sur ces documents que les experts qui ont appuyÃ© la dÃ©cision de la commission devant les tribunaux se sont forgÃ©s leur opinion de la requÃ©rante . Or, les auteurs de ces documents sont les mÃ©mes travailleurs sociaux qui se sont achamÃ©s Ã lui enlever l'enfant . Ils ont tracÃ© d'elle un portrait extrÃªmement dÃ©plaisant, essentiellement en citant ce que, d'aprÃ¨s eux, elle leur aurait dit, ou ce qu'ils prÃ©tendent que d'autres personnes ont rapportÃ© qu'elle avait dit . Ils allÃ¨guent parfois qu'au dire d'autres personnes, elle aurait fait ceci ou cela . Ces affirrnations n'ayant pas Ã©tÃ© contrÃ´lÃ©es par les tribunaux n'auraient pas dÃ» permettre de conclure que la requÃ©rante Ã©tait incapable de prendre l'enfant en charge . Du reste, ces documents ont Ã©t Ã© 164
rÃ©digÃ©s postÃ©rieurement Ã la sÃ©paration d'Alexandre et de sa mÃ¨re . 11 Ã©tait trÃ¨s facile aux travailleurs sociaux qui ont rÃ©digÃ© ces rapports et qui souhaitaient manifestement voir le juge trouver des excuses Ã leur dÃ©cision antÃ©rieure d'enlever l'enfant Ã sa mÃ¨re, de prÃ©senter un point de vue part ial ou de rapporter de maniÃ¨re inexactes les dires d'autrui . Et mÃ¨me lorsque le rappo rt retrace fidÃ©lement les propos du tÃ©moin, l'affirmation elle-mÃ©me peut Ãªtre inexacte . Par exemple, le dossier rapporte Ã juste titre que le docteur K . a indiquÃ©, parmi les raisons qu'il avait de recommander de sÃ©parer Alexandre de sa mÃ©re immÃ©diatement et de toute urgence, que l'enfant Ã©tait battu Ã la maison et que la requÃ©rante Ã©tait toujours ivre . Or, lorsqu'il a fait cette dÃ©claration, le docteur K . n'avait pas vu Alexandre ni sa mÃ¨re depuis quatre ans et, d'ailleurs, lorsque la requÃ©rante a attirÃ© son attention sur ce point, il a reconnu devant le juge de paix (j ustitiekanslern) que cette affirmation Ã©tait inexacte . Le juge n'a cependant pas vu lÃ une raison de blÃ mer le mÃ©decin et a jugÃ© que le docteur K . n'avait comniis aucun mal en donnant des informations fausses et nuisibles, estimant sans doute que la fi n justifie les moyens . La requÃ©rante s'Ã©lÃ¨ve contre la prÃ©sentation que le Gouvemement donne des faits ayant conduit Ã la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance publique . Elle n'a pas laissÃ© Alexandre Ã l'abandon . Au contraire, les Ã©lÃ©ments du dossier montrent qu'elle a dÃ©pensÃ© beaucoup d'Ã©nergie Ã essayer de rÃ©soudre le problÃ©me d0 au fait qu'Alexandre Ã©tait malmenÃ© par ses camarades d'Ã©cole et qu'il en Ã©tait dÃ©primÃ© et agitÃ© . Elle a souvent recontrÃ© son maÃ®tre et proposÃ© diffÃ©rentes solutions, par exemple, faire en sorte qu'Alexandre rentre chez lui en taxi aprÃ¨s l'Ã©cole . Il est arrivÃ© qu'en septembre 1979, lorsqu'il s'attardait dans la halle aux jeux Ã jouer au flipper au lieu de rentrer chez lui pour souper, elle demandÃ¢t Ã la police d'aller le chercher et de lui dire, ainsi qu'aux enfants qui Ã©taient avec lui, de rentrer chez eux . Elle avait projetÃ© d'aller avec Alexandre en Bolivie oÃ¹ elle pourrait travailler et avait pris ses dispositions pour qu'il frÃ©quente lÃ -bas une Ã©cole suÃ©doise . Cela lui aurait Ã©pargnÃ© les brutalitÃ©s des garÃ§ons de l'Ã©cole de Liding& et il est fort probable que cela aurait Ã©galement mis fin Ã son Ã©tat dÃ©pressif et agitÃ© . L'enfant Ã©tait enchantÃ© de cette perspective et cela fut pour lui - ainsi que pour la requÃ©rante - un terrible choc lorsque la police vint le chercher d'autoritÃ© Ã son Ã©cole la veille de leur dÃ©part . La requÃ©rante met sÃ©rieusement en doute qu'Alexandre aurait dit qu'elle l'empÃªchait d'aller Ã l'Ã©cole et qu'elle le battait . Ces accusations formulÃ©es par le Gouvemement se fondent sur des renseignements de troisiÃ¨me main et sont trÃ¨s probablement le fruit de mensonges . Elles n'ont d'ailleurs jamais Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©es par les tribunaux . Personne n'a jamais constatÃ© aucune preuve, aucune trace de coups sur l'enfant tant qu'il a Ã©tÃ© Ã la charge de la requÃ©rante . Les tribunaux qui ont examinÃ© la dÃ©cision de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistanc e et de tenir secret le lieu de sa famille d'accueil, ont fait preuve de partialitÃ© . lls ont acceptÃ© l'allÃ©gation des services sociaux locaux selon laquelle la requÃ©rante reprÃ©sentait un risque pour le dÃ©veloppement d'Alexandre et ce, sur la foi de l'avis de prÃ©tendus experts, Mme H ., mÃ©decin et M . Y ., psychologue . Or . ni l'un ni l'autre
n'ont jamais examinÃ© la requÃ©rante . Leur avis se fonde sur ce que les travailleurs sociaux ont dit d'elle . Le tribunal administratif rÃ©gional n'a absolument pas tenu compte du tÃ©moin qui a dÃ©posÃ© en faveur de la requÃ©rante . La cour d'appel administrative, non plus, n'a pas tenu compte de l'avis du docteur F ., expe rt suÃ©dois en psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adulte, qui, aprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© la requÃ©rante, a Ã©mis l'opinion qu'il s'agit d'une Â« fetmne tr8s instmite et intellectuelle, d'une personne affectivement trÃ¨s chaleureuse et fo rt capable d'Ã©lever un enfant et d'en prendre la pleine responsabilitÃ© dans l'intÃ©rÃªt du meilleur Ã©panouissement affectif et intellectuel de l'enfant â¢ . Les tribunaux ont ferrnÃ© les yeux devant le fait que l'une des raisons mentionnÃ©es par les travailleurs sociaux pour placer Alexandre Ã l'Assis ta nce publique en 1979 Ã©tait la publication rÃ©cente en Finlande, par la requÃ©rante, de certains articles qui, selon eux, " livraient les se rv ices sociaux suÃ©dois en gÃ©nÃ©ral et notanunent ceux de LidingÃ´ Ã la calomnie pure et simple" . Les tribunaux, tout comme le MÃ©diateur, n'ont pas compris qu'enlever un enfant de son foyer pour un tel motif constituait une mÃ©connaissance de la libenÃ© d'expression . Des annÃ©es durant, les travailleurs sociaux ont Ã©tÃ© animÃ©s contre la requÃ©rante d'un esprit vindicatif et totalitaire . Par exemple, le rapport qu'ils ont Ã©crit en 1975 montre qu'ils dÃ©sapprouvaient le dÃ©sir de la mÃ¨re de donner Ã Alexandre une Ã©ducation internationale . Il ressort en effet de ce texte que le premier examen de la situation d'Alexandre - examen qui dura six mois - ne fut entamÃ© que parce qu'une infirmi8re du district avait signalÃ© en fÃ©vrier 1972 que la requÃ©rante s'adressait Ã l'enfant en anglais et que le garÃ§on n'avait pas de camarade de jeux . On ne trouva cependant rien pour justifier le soupÃ§on que quelque chose allait mal . Il ressort de ce mÃªme rapport que les tr availleurs sociaux Ã©taient hostiles Ã l'idÃ©e de la requÃ©rante d'inscrire Alexandre Ã l'Ã©cole angloamÃ©ricaine de Stockholm . lis indiquent avoir pendant deux ans essayÃ© â¢d'inciter Â» la mÃ¨re Ã mettre l'enfant dans une garde ri e gÃ©rÃ©e par la municipalitÃ©, puis dans une Ã©cole matemelle lorsqu'il fut trop Ã gÃ©_ pour la garderie . le fait est qu'ils insistÃ¨rent tellement qu'elle cÃ©da finalement et mit l'enfant dans une Ã© cole maternelle de la municipalitÃ©, puis dans une Ã©cole primaire, Ã©galement municipale . Elle le regrette maintenant be aucoup car Alexandre n'aurait Ã coup sÃ¹rjamais Ã© tÃ© malmenÃ© par ses camarades s'il avait frÃ©quentÃ© l'Ã©cole anglo-amÃ©ricaine, oÃ¹ il n'aurait pas pam Â« bizarre - du fait de ses antÃ©cÃ©dents internationaux, comme c'Ã© ta it le cas Ã l'Ã©cole municipale . La requÃ©rante soutient que si on lui a enlevÃ© son enfant, ce n'est pas parce qu'elle ne s'en occupait pas mais parce qu'elle souhaitait lui donner une formation intellectuelle . Elle a demandÃ© aux autoritÃ©s de placer Alexandre, Ã ses frais, soit Ã l'Ã©cole Karlsson de Stockholm, soit Ã l'Ã©cole de Lundsberg Ã VÃ rmland . Cependant, les intentions de la requÃ©rante sur l'enfant ne rencontraient pas l'agrÃ©ment des fonctionnaires qui furent effectivement en l'espÃ©ce les dÃ©cideurs . Pour empÃªcher la requÃ©rante de prendre des mesures concemant l'Ã©ducation de l'enfant, il fut dÃ©cidÃ© de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assis ta nce et de la soumettre Ã un traitement qui amoindrirai t
sa personnalitÃ© . Pour Ã©viter l'influence de la requÃ©rante, on supprima complÃ¨tement les contacts entre la mÃ¨re et l'enfant . On n'autorisa aucune correspondance et la mÃ¨re ne fut pas admise Ã savoir oÃ¹ se trouvait son enfant . La garde de l'enfant fut confiÃ©e Ã un dÃ©linquant d'habitude, qui avait purgÃ© de longues peines de prison . La femme qui vivait avec cet homme sans Ãªtre son Ã©pouse avait, elle aussi, Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©e . L'enfant fut maintenu prisonnier sur une ile pendant un an et demi et fut mÃªme privÃ© d'une scolaritÃ© normale . Il fut soumis Ã des brutalitÃ©s et obligÃ© de travailler sur un bateau . On le frappa notamment avec un filin d'acier . L'idÃ©e Ã©tait d'en faire un travailleur manuel et non un intellectuel . On alla jusqu'Ã le priver de son nom . Pendant les derniÃ©res annÃ©es qu'il passa dans cette famille d'accueil, les parents nourriciers Ã©taient sÃ©parÃ©s . La mÃ¨re nourriciÃ¨re avait Ã©pousÃ© un autre homme . Du reste, Alexandre Ã©tait le premier enfant d'Ã¢ge aussi tendre Ã @tre placÃ© dans ce foyer . les autres, plus 3gÃ©s, Ã©taient souvent des dÃ©linquants ou des prostituÃ©s . Le p8re nourricier avait un talent particulier pour effrayer ces jeunes et fit peur Ã Alexandre pour qu'il ne prenne pas la fuite . La triste histoire de la requÃ©rante s'explique par le fait prÃ©alable qu'il lui a Ã©tÃ© impossible de faire contrÃ´ler par un juge impartial les mesures dÃ©cidÃ©es par l'administration . En principe, la procÃ©dure devant les juridictions administratives est Ã©crite . Les experns consultÃ©s par les autoritÃ©s bÃ©nÃ©ficient d'une confiance excessive de la part des jurÃ©s . Ce qu'ils disent dans leurs attestations est gÃ©nÃ©ralement acceptÃ© . Les experts privÃ©s en matiÃ¨re d'Ã©ducation et de protection de l'enfance sont rares car ce genre d'experts n'a pas de dÃ©bouchÃ© en dehors du secteur public . De plus, les tribunaux ont tendance Ã ne pas tenir compte de l'opinion des experts privÃ©s et parfois mÃªme, refusent de les entendre . En outre, les anicles critiques publiÃ©s par la requÃ©rante dans la presse finlandaise ont suscitÃ© de la part de l'administration des reprÃ©sailles entÃ©rinÃ©es par la justice . Les juges ont pour l'essentiel lu le dossier, y compris les articles de joumaux mais n'ont pas entendu la cause . La requÃ©rante soutient qu'il y a eu mÃ©connaissance de sa libertÃ© d'expression . Alexandre a Ã©tÃ© obligÃ© de changer son nom en Svensson . La requÃ©rante conteste que la clinique de psychiatrie infantile d'Eskilstuna ait conseillÃ© de ne pas envoyer l'enfant Ã l'Ã©cole . C'est Ã la fin de 1980 que, sur la demande du tribunal, la clinique s'est occupÃ©e de l'affaire pour dÃ©terminer si, d'un point de vue mÃ©dical et psychologique, il Ã©tait justifiÃ© de supprimer tout contact entre la requÃ©rante et son enfant . A l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ Alexandre rÃ©ussit son Ã©vasion le 8 mai 1984, une procÃ©dure Ã©tait en cours devant le tribunal de district de Stidra Roslag . La commission de protection sociale de Lidingii avait demandÃ© au tribunal de retirer Ã la requÃ©rante ce qui lui restait encore de puissance parentale pour les questions juridiques concernant Alexandre . L'enfant fut entendu par le tribunal le 7 mai . Il n'osa dire que ce que le pÃ¨re nourricier et les travailleurs sociaux l'obligÃ¨rent Ã dire : qu'il Ã©tait parfaitement heureux dans sa famille d'accueil et qu'il ne voulait absolument pas avoir affaire Ã s a 167
mÃ¨re . Alexandre s'enfuit de son foyer d'accueil le lendemain . La requÃ©rante n'a jouÃ© aucun rÃ´le dans cette Ã©vasion mais a bien sÃ»r aidÃ© l'enfant dÃ¨s qu'il a pris contact avec elle ensuite . Elle n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ©e Ã le voir, Ã plus forte raison Ã lui parler, pendant la procÃ©dure judiciaire et ne l'avait pas vu depuis plus de quatre ans et demi . Il avait parfois rÃ©ussi Ã la contacter en secret par tÃ©lÃ©phone mais trÃ¨s rarement, et la derniÃ¨re fois qu'elle lui avait parlÃ© remontait Ã deux mois avant son Ã©vasion . C'est l'enfant qui, de son propre grÃ©, organisa et exÃ©cuta son Ã©vasion . La requÃ©rante renvoie Ã plusieurs incidents selon lesquels Alexandra aurait Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ© dans la famille d'accueil . Les dÃ©tails en sont venus Ã l'attention des services sociaux de tutelle et le 5 mai 1983 eut lieu Ã StrÃ ngnÃ s une rÃ©union entre les agents des services de protection sociale des diffÃ©rentes commissions . L'une de ces commissions au moins dÃ©cida que l'enfant qu'elle avait placÃ© dans la famille d'accueil d'Alexandre devait en Ãªtre immÃ©diatement retirÃ© suite Ã de mauvais traitements . Cependant, bien que la commission sociale de Liding6 ait recommandÃ© d'enlever Alexandre Ã cette famille, l'enfant y demeura nÃ©anmoins . La requÃ©rante soutient qu'Alexandre n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã frÃ©quenter l'Ã©cole en 1980 et 1981 ainsi que pendant une partie de 1984 . La requÃ©rante s'est toujours efforcÃ©e de donner Ã son fils une grande culture, jointe Ã de nombreux contacts internationaux et Ã une fotmation en diverses langues Ã©trangÃ¨res . Or, le choix de la famille d'accueil a Ã©tÃ© complÃ¨tement opposÃ© Ã ses vo_ux . Lorsqu'aprÃ¨s sa premiÃ¨re annÃ©e passÃ©e dans la famille d'accueil, Alexandre fut autorisÃ© Ã frÃ©quenter l'Ã©cole, il y fut rigoureusement surveillÃ© et n'avait aucune chance de pouvoir s'en enfuir . II ne fut pas autorisÃ© Ã tÃ©lÃ©phoner depuis l'Ã©cole ni Ã participer Ã une sortie scolaire sans la prÃ©sence de son pÃ¨re nourricier . Aussi a-t-il perdu une grande partie de sa scolaritÃ© . L'une des institutrices a signalÃ© qu'elle n'avait jamais Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ©e Ã lui parler au tÃ©lÃ©phone lorsqu'elle appelait la famille d'accueil pour examiner certaines questions avec l'enfant . La requÃ©rame voulait absolument avoir un rapport indÃ©pendant sur I'Ã©tat rÃ©el de l'enfant . Or, en 1981, la commission de protection sociale, appuyÃ©e par le tribunal de deuxiÃ¨me instance, n'a pas autorisÃ© le docteur F ., psychiatre suÃ©dois de l'enfant, Ã voir Alexandre . En septembre 1982, un professeur finlandais de psychiatrie de l'enfance, Mme K ., vint en SuÃ¨de pour rencontrer Alexandre, conformÃ©ment Ã un accord passÃ© avec le prÃ©sident de la commission de protection sociale . Mais elle ne fut pas autorisÃ©e Ã voir l'enfant, aprÃ¨s que deux travailleurs sociaux dont le docteur H . (le psychiatre qui avait recommandÃ© de placer Alexandre Ã l'Assistance publique) et deux autoritÃ©s de tutelle aient mis en garde contre le danger pour l'enfant de rencontrer ce professeur . La mÃªme scÃ¨ne se reproduisit en janvier 1984 lorsque M"" Birgitta Wolf, de Mumau en Allemagne, se rendit en SuÃ¨de pour voir Alexandre dans sa famille d'accueil . Toutefois, cette femme qui est intemationalement connue pour son engagement depuis trente ans Ã la cause de l'humanisation des
conditions de dÃ©tention, rÃ©ussit Ã exercer sur la commission de protection sociale une pression politique telle qu'elle a finalement rÃ©ussi Ã Ã©tre autorisÃ©e Ã voir Alexandre et les parents nourriciers, mais pas dans la famille d'accueil . La rencontre eut lieu dans un hÃ´tel d'Upsal . MmO Wolf a dÃ©crit la situation dans trois articles de journaux auxquels la requÃ©rante renvoie la Commission . Quant Ã la question litigieuse au regard de l'article 8 par . 2, la requÃ©rante a soutenu que les examens psychiques pratiquÃ©s en 1975 et 1979 ont montrÃ© qu'Alexandre Ã©tait en bonne santÃ© et ne portait aucune trace de mauvais tmitements . On a dit que la prise en charge d'Alexandre par l'administration visait Ã amÃ©liorer la santÃ© psychique de l'enfant ou Ã le protÃ©ger de l'in0uence nuisible de la requÃ©rante . On a dit qu'Alexandre devait Ãªtre placÃ© dans un famille d'accueil avec possibilitÃ© d'assistance thÃ©rapeutique qualifiÃ©e . Or, la requÃ©rante soutient, en renvoyant Ã plusieurs dÃ©clarations faites par des psychiatres de l'enfance, que les raisons avancÃ©es Ã©taient parfaitement dÃ©nuÃ©es de fondement et contraires ntÃ¨me Ã l'effet recherchÃ© . Selon elle, il faudrait pour Ã¨tre exact qualifier l'enquÃ¨te effectuÃ©e d'â¢abus de la psychiatrie commis loin de la maison et de la famille- . Justifier la dÃ©cision de placement Ã l'Assistance en invoquant la nÃ©cessitÃ© dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique n'est rien moins que scandaleux . MalgrÃ© la recommandation du docteur H . selon laquelle Alexandre devait @tre placÃ© dans une famille d'accueil avec possibilitÃ© d'assistance thÃ©rapeutique qualifiÃ©e, ce n'est qu'en novembre 1980 que l'enfant a vu un psychiatre pour enfants ou un psychologue et encore n'Ã©tait-ce que pour un simple examen . En bref, on se trouve ici devant un cas flagrant de violation des articles 3, 6, 8 et 10 de la Convention et de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel .
EN DROI T La requÃ©rante se plaint de ce que le placement de son fils Ã l'Assistance publi1. que a constituÃ© une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . Elle se plaint Ã©galement de ce que le fait de lui refuser de voir son fils lorsqu'il Ã©tait Ã l'Assistance Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 8 . L'article 8 de la Convention est ainsi libellÃ© : â¢ 1 . Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . 2 . 11 ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sÃ»retÃ© publique, au bien-Ã¨tre Ã©conomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . â¢
Le Gouvemement a soutenu que les griefs tirÃ©s par la requÃ©rante de l'article 8 sont irrecevables pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement . Cependant, la Commission estime que les griefs formulÃ©s posent des questions de fait et de droit dont la complexitÃ© appelle, pour en dÃ©cider, un examen au fond . Cette partie de la requÃªte n'est dÃ¨s lors pas manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable, aucun motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . 2 . La requÃ©rante a allÃ©guÃ© Ã©galement une violation de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . Cet article est ainsi libellÃ© : . Nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit Ã l'instrvction . L'Etac . dans l'exercice des fonctions qu'il assumera dans le domaine de l'Ã©ducation et de l'enseignement, respectera le droit des parents d'assurer cette Ã©ducation et cet enseignement conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques . Â» AprÃ©s avoir examinÃ© l'argumentation des parties au regard de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel, la Commission estime que se pose la question de savoir si, pendant la pÃ©riode oÃ¹ l'enfant Ã©tait Ã l'Assistance publique, la commission de protection sociale a dGment respectÃ© les droits garantis Ã la requÃ©rante par l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . Selon la Commission, il se pose lÃ de difficiles questions de fait et de droit d'une telle complexitÃ© qu'il ne peut Ãªtre statuÃ© Ã leur sujet qu'aprÃ¨s un examen au fond . Cette partie de la requÃªte n'est donc pas non plus manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable, aucun motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . 3 . La requÃ©rante a Ã©galement allÃ©guÃ© une violation des articles 3, 6 et 10 de la Convention . Les faits sur lesquels se fondent ces allÃ©gations Ã©tant pour beaucoup les mÃªmes que ceux examinÃ©s ci-dessus aux points I et 2, la requÃªte est, dÃ¨s lors, Ã©galement recevable Ã cet Ã©gard . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE, tous moyens de fond rÃ©se rvÃ©s .
170Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/05/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page