Date when decision was rendered: 15.11.2002

Judicial body: Administrative Court of Hämeenlinna = Tavastehus förvaltningsdomstol = Hämeenlinnan hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 02/0499/4; 01308/02/4310

Reference to source

Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for private life, respect for family life, children, visiting rights,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, barn, umgängesrätt,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, lapset, tapaamisoikeus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 19, 24 and 25 of the Child Welfare Act; sections 7-3, 17-3, 22 and 80-1 of the Constitution Act

= barnskyddslagen 19 §, 24 § och 25 §; grundlagen 7 § 3 mom., 17 § 3 mom., 22 § och 80 § 1 mom.

= lastensuojelulaki 19 §, 24 § ja 25 §; perustuslaki 7 § 3 mom., 17 § 3 mom., 22 § ja 80 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8; CRC-9-3

Abstract

A municipal social welfare board had taken a child into care and had provided substitute care for her in a foster family.The board had later decided to restrict the contacts between the child and her mother, with reference to a care plan appended to the decision and on the grounds that the child was still in the process of adjusting herself to living with the foster family.

According to the administrative court, it was not possible to agree on the right of access on the basis of a care plan when the number of visits permitted was essentially smaller than the parents had wished or essentially smaller than that which is customary when applying the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.The court then referred to the Constitution Act and noted that possible restrictions to a person's rights should be based on an Act.In this case, the relevant provision was section 25 of the Child Welfare Act, which prescribes that the right of access between a child in substitute care and his or her parents may be restricted if such access clearly endangers the development or safety of the child or such a restriction is necessary for the safety of the parents or the foster parents.According to the administrative court, nothing in the board's decision, in the care plan or in the oral hearing before the court had indicated that there would have been any such danger to the child, her parent or the foster parents.The administrative court concluded, that considering that taking a child into custody is primarily a temporary measure, the social welfare board had not had any grounds to restrict the contacts between the child and her mother to the extent prescribed in the board's decision.The board's decision was quashed.The court's decision is final.

The administrative court does not refer to international human rights provisions in the text of its decision.However, the list of applied legal provisions, which is appended to the decision, contains references to Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 9-3 of the CRC.

9.5.2003 / 5.8.2003 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 12.11.1998

Judicial body: The Administrative Court of Uusimaa = Nylands länsrätt = Uudenmaan lääninoikeus

Reference: Report No. 694/2; 3283/4310/98

Reference to source

Electronic database FLOT within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FLOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FLOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

children, visiting rights, access to court,
barn, umgängesrätt, rätt till domstolsprövning,
lapset, tapaamisoikeus, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn,

Relevant legal provisions

section 25 of the Child Welfare Act; section 16 of the Constitution Act

= barnskyddslagen 25 §; regeringsformen 16 §

= lastensuojelulaki 25 §; hallitusmuoto 16 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The director of a private children's home, a civil servant and a section of a municipal board had all decided to restrict the right of children, who had been placed in substitute care, to see their parents.The children's father appealed against the decisions to an administrative court.

It is prescribed in section 25 of the Child Welfare Act that a municipal social welfare board and a director of a residential home have a right to restrict the visiting rights of children in substitute care.The administrative court found that also a director of a private children's home may, on the basis of section 25, restrict the right of a child in substitute care to see his or her parents.However, there were no specific provisions in law concerning the possibility to appeal against the decision.The decision of the director of the private children's home in this case concerned a person's rights.Taking into account Article 6-1 of the ECHR and section 16 of the Constitution Act and considering the nature of the matter, the court concluded that it was necessary to bring the matter before an independent tribunal.In the court's opinion, no distinction could be made between the right to appeal against a decision of the director of a private children's home and the right to appeal against a decision made by the director of a children's home which is maintained by municipal or state authorities.The administrative court decided to admit the appeal against the decision of the director of the private children's home.

6.8.2003 / 6.8.2003 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 3.3.2005

Judicial body: Rovaniemi Court of Appeal = Rovaniemi hovrätt = Rovaniemen hovioikeus

Reference: Report no. 191; S04/460

Reference to source

RHO 2005:7.

Electronic database FHOT within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for family life, parents, children, visiting rights,
respekt för familjeliv, föräldrar, barn, umgängesrätt,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, vanhemmat, lapset, tapaamisoikeus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 21, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 21 kapitel 2 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 21 luku 2 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

B had asked the court of first instance to order on the custody and access rights with regard to the four children she had with A.During the process, A and B reached agreement on joint custody and access rights, but disagreed on the question as to where one of the children should live.B demanded that the child should stay with her, whereas the three other children could stay with A.With reference to the reports of the social welfare authorities and to the children's own wishes, the court ruled that all four children should live with A.The court also ordered that A should pay for his own legal costs.A appealed against the decision as far as the legal costs were concerned and demanded that B should compensate his legal costs at the first instance court.A claimed that B had referred the matter to court without any justified cause.B was aware that the authorities' reports as well as certain other factors well known to B supported the fact that all four children should stay together and with A.B had not contested the reports, nor shown any evidence against them.

According to the Code of Judicial Procedure, in a case which is not amenable to settlement out of court, the parties shall be liable for their own legal costs, unless there is a special reason for rendering a party liable for the legal costs of the opposing party.Such special reason may be that the matter is disputed or that the process has been abused.In the opinion of the court of appeal, the fact that a matter is in dispute is not alone a sufficient reason to make an exception to the main rule regarding legal costs.In legal matters concerning a child, both parents have a right to put forward claims concerning the realization of custody and access rights.In view of the fact that both parents also have the right to respect for their family life, guaranteed by international human rights treaties, the court of appeal held that the relevant provision in the Code of Judicial Procedure should in this case be interpreted in a manner favourable to human rights.In cases concerning children, a parent should not be ordered to pay the legal costs of the other parent on insignificant grounds.Despite the contents of the authorities' reports, B had the right to bring the matter before a court.It had not been shown that B would have abused this right.The court rejected A's claim.The decision is final.

29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 17.2.2005

Judicial body: Helsinki court of first instance = Helsingfors tingsrätt = Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Reference: Report no. 4531; 04/27224

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki court of first instance

Helsingfors tingsrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin käräjäoikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for family life, children, visiting rights, prisoners, best interests of the child, children,
respekt för familjeliv, barn, umgängesrätt, fångar, barnets bästa, barn,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, lapset, tapaamisoikeus, vangit, lapsen etu, lapset,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 2 and 10 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act

= lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 2 § och 10 §

= laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 2 § ja 10 §.

Abstract

A had been convicted to imprisonment of several offences, among them the rape of his ex-wife B.A and B had two children, aged 2 and 3.A petitioned the court to grant him the right to meet with his children twice a month in the prison premises as long as he is serving his sentence.He was to be released in September 2005.A claimed among other things that the fact that he was not able to see his children while he was in prison violated his human rights.B objected to A's request.When A was imprisoned in 2002, the younger child was 5 months old, and she could no longer remember her father.The older child remembered A, but was afraid of him and had among other things suffered from nightmares having witnessed A's violent behaviour towards B.B herself did not want to be present when A met with the children, and the children could not be left alone with a parent who was a stranger to them and whom they were scared of.The court of first instance agreed with B.It ruled that in order to build a positive relationship of confidence between A and the children, the first meetings should preferably be brief and be arranged in an environment in which the children felt safe.In the court's opinion, it was not in the best interests of the children to grant A the right to meet with the children while he was in prison.The court rejected A's petition.

29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 14.3.2006

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 540; 3248/3/04

Reference to source

KHO 2006:10.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 291-302

Subject

right to education, visiting rights, children, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, umgängesrätt, barn, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, tapaamisoikeus, lapset, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 4-1, 6-1, 28-1, 32-1 and 32-3 of the Basic Education Act; sections 7-2 and 9-1-2 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act; section 16-1 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 4 § 1 mom., 6 § 1 mom., 28 § 1 mom., 32 § 1 mom. och 32 § 3 mom.; lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 7 § 2 punkten och 9 § 1 mom. 2 punkten; grundlagen 16 § 1 mom.

= perusopetuslaki 4 § 1 mom., 6 § 1 mom., 28 § 1 mom., 32 § 1 mom. ja 32 § 3 mom.; laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 7 § 2 kohta ja 9 § 1 mom. 2 kohta; perustuslaki 16 § 1 mom.

CRC-3; CRC-28

Abstract

A and B had divorced and had joint custody of their child, C.The parents had agreed that C would live with her mother B.A court of first instance had confirmed this agreement and ruled that C also had the right to stay with her father A for seven days in every three weeks.Both parents lived in the same municipality but in different residential areas.In accordance with the Basic Education Act, the municipality had assigned to C a school she would attend and provided free transportation between the school and C's permanent residence at her mother's.The school was situated at the distance of some 2 kilometres from B's apartment whereas the distance between the school and A's apartment was close to 20 kilometres.A and B claimed that the municipality should arrange C's school transport also when she was staying with her father.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to the fact that under the Basic Education Act the municipality has an obligation to arrange basic education for children.Education shall be arranged so as to make pupils' travel to and from school as safe and short as possible.The municipality will also provide free transportation to and from school in cases specified in the Act.In order to implement these obligations, the municipality usually assigns to pupils living in a specific residential area a neighbourhood school in that area.In this case, the parents had agreed that the child should live with her mother, and a court had confirmed this arrangement.As C's permanent residence was at her mother's, the municipality had assigned to her a school in the area where she and her mother lived.The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the municipality had no obligation under the Basic Education Act to arrange free transportation between C's school and her father's apartment while she was staying with him, nor to provide a subsidy for transporting or accompanying C to school from her father's place.The Court concluded that the fact that a child, because of the living arrangements chosen by the child's parents, has no possibility to get free transportation to school from a place where the child regularly stays apart from his or her permanent residence or to get a subsidy for transportation, does not violate the child's right to basic education free of charge as prescribed in section 16-1 of the Constitution Act, nor does it violate the child's right to meet with the parent the child does not live with.

1.6.2006 / 8.9.2009 / RHANSKI