ABSTRACT
The first applicant was the adopted son of the second applicant (‘the applicant grandfather’). The applicant father had two daughters, born in 1985 and 1991, whose mother was hospitalised several times after the birth of the second child on account of her mental health. In January 1992, the children were placed in provisional public care, on suspicion that the older child had been sexually abused and that the younger child was in serious danger of being subjected to similar abuse. The Social Welfare Board restricted the parents’ right of access to the older child to two weekly visits at the hospital and decided not to disclose the younger child’s whereabouts. The parents appealed to the County Administrative Court which dismissed their appeals without holding an oral hearing. Their subsequent appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was also rejected. The parents divorced in 1996. The restrictions remained in force. The applicant grandfather appealed against access prohibitions imposed on him; his appeals were dismissed by the courts. In 1996, the older child stated that she did not wish to meet her father as often as the visits were taking place and did not wish to meet her grandparents at all. In 1998, the access restrictions were continued on the ground that both applicants had sexually abused the older girl. They did not appeal that decision. The applicants complained that the taking of the children into public care was too drastic a measure and that especially after that measure, the authorities had not aimed at effectively reuniting the family. They also complained that their right to a fair trial had been violated as the Country Administrative Court refused to hold an oral hearing. They further complained that they had been deprived of an effective remedy under A 13. Court found unanimously NV 8, NV 13, V 6(1).
