CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 mai 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5C1EE5DD { width:228.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 37536/97 by Maila Annikki LAUKKANEN and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   May   2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14   July   1997 and registered on 28   August   1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Maila Annikki Laukkanen, and her husband Mr   Raimo Laukkanen, are Finnish nationals, born in 1941 and 1938 respectively and living in Vantaa. They are represented before the Court by Mr I.   Miettinen, a lawyer practising in Tampere. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants’ granddaughter A. was born in 1983. A. has permanently lived with her maternal grandparents, i.e. the applicants, since 22   January   1993 without any contacts to her mother, R. On 23   January 1995, the applicants requested the District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt ) of Vantaa that the guardianship of A. be transferred to them. The mother of the child, R., opposed the transfer and argued that the applicants had no right to institute such proceedings as she herself was the only legal guardian of A. On 2   November   1995 the District Court decided that it would not examine the applicants’ request as the applicants - even as foster parents of the child - had no legal right to institute such proceedings. Such a right was, in accordance with the Act on Custody and Visiting Rights with Regard to Children ( laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta, lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt ), reserved to the parents of the child, one of them, the guardians of the child and the Social Welfare Board. The District Court pointed out that the interests of the child are reasonably safeguarded by the fact that the Social Welfare Board may institute proceedings on behalf of the child, if need be. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal ( hovioikeus, hovrätt ) which, in its decision of 6   June   1996, upheld the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ) refused the applicants leave to appeal on 23   January   1997. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain that they did not have access to court as the social welfare authorities’ decision not to institute proceedings meant de facto that the question of the guardianship of the child was decided by the social welfare authorities instead of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. 2.     The applicants also complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have a right to an effective remedy as the domestic courts refused to examine their request. THE LAW On 18   January 2001 the Court decided to communicate the application and to invite the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case by 13   April 2001. On 5   April   2001 the Court received from the applicants’ representative a letter informing the Court of the applicants’ “absolute” wish to withdraw the application and to have the proceedings terminated. The letter stated, inter alia , the following: “... The case was closed more than four years ago and my clients Annikki and Raimo Laukkanen have finally recovered from the depression and illnesses the proceedings caused them. [Their] granddaughter Annukka Laukkanen is also 18 years old already. The Government of Finland has started to prepare their answer to the application [by] contacting Annukka Laukkanen and the social workers. My clients are too tired for any kind of proceedings where [these] old matters will be reopened.” The applicants’ declaration was communicated to the Government for information on 5   April   2001. On the same day the Government requested that the time-limit for the Government’s observations be extended pending the Court’s decision on whether the application should be struck out of the list of cases. The President of the Chamber granted the postponement as requested. Taking note of the applicants’ request to strike the case out of its list of cases, the Court concludes, in accordance with Article 37   §   1(a) of the Convention, that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application. Mindful of the fact that the child has reached the age of majority the Court, furthermore, is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37   §   1 in fine of the Convention). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   May   2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14   July   1997 and registered on 28   August   1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Maila Annikki Laukkanen, and her husband Mr   Raimo Laukkanen, are Finnish nationals, born in 1941 and 1938 respectively and living in Vantaa. They are represented before the Court by Mr I.   Miettinen, a lawyer practising in Tampere. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants’ granddaughter A. was born in 1983. A. has permanently lived with her maternal grandparents, i.e. the applicants, since 22   January   1993 without any contacts to her mother, R. On 23   January 1995, the applicants requested the District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt ) of Vantaa that the guardianship of A. be transferred to them. The mother of the child, R., opposed the transfer and argued that the applicants had no right to institute such proceedings as she herself was the only legal guardian of A. On 2   November   1995 the District Court decided that it would not examine the applicants’ request as the applicants - even as foster parents of the child - had no legal right to institute such proceedings. Such a right was, in accordance with the Act on Custody and Visiting Rights with Regard to Children ( laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta, lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt ), reserved to the parents of the child, one of them, the guardians of the child and the Social Welfare Board. The District Court pointed out that the interests of the child are reasonably safeguarded by the fact that the Social Welfare Board may institute proceedings on behalf of the child, if need be. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal ( hovioikeus, hovrätt ) which, in its decision of 6   June   1996, upheld the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ) refused the applicants leave to appeal on 23   January   1997. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain that they did not have access to court as the social welfare authorities’ decision not to institute proceedings meant de facto that the question of the guardianship of the child was decided by the social welfare authorities instead of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. 2.     The applicants also complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have a right to an effective remedy as the domestic courts refused to examine their request. THE LAW On 18   January 2001 the Court decided to communicate the application and to invite the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case by 13   April 2001. On 5   April   2001 the Court received from the applicants’ representative a letter informing the Court of the applicants’ “absolute” wish to withdraw the application and to have the proceedings terminated. The letter stated, inter alia , the following: “... The case was closed more than four years ago and my clients Annikki and Raimo Laukkanen have finally recovered from the depression and illnesses the proceedings caused them. [Their] granddaughter Annukka Laukkanen is also 18 years old already. The Government of Finland has started to prepare their answer to the application [by] contacting Annukka Laukkanen and the social workers. My clients are too tired for any kind of proceedings where [these] old matters will be reopened.” The applicants’ declaration was communicated to the Government for information on 5   April   2001. On the same day the Government requested that the time-limit for the Government’s observations be extended pending the Court’s decision on whether the application should be struck out of the list of cases. The President of the Chamber granted the postponement as requested. Taking note of the applicants’ request to strike the case out of its list of cases, the Court concludes, in accordance with Article 37   §   1(a) of the Convention, that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application. Mindful of the fact that the child has reached the age of majority the Court, furthermore, is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37   §   1 in fine of the Convention). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President