Page 16 of 30 The Court recalls that in proceedings originating in an application lodged under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention it has to confine itself, as far as possible, to an examination of the concrete case before it (see, as the most recent authority, the F v. Switzerland judgment of 18 December 1987, Series A no. 128, p. 16, § 31). Its task is accordingly not to review the aforesaid law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected Mr. and Mrs. Olsson gave rise to a violation of the Convention. 55. At the Court’s hearing, the Government contended that in its report the Commission had gone beyond the limits of its admissibility decision of 15 May 1985 by considering a number of decisions not examined therein or in respect of which domestic remedies had not been exhausted at that date. In their submission, the Court should not deal with the decisions in question, which were: firstly, those taken by the Council on 21 October 1980, 10 August 1982, 2 August 1983, 6 December 1983 and 30 October 1984 and by the County Administrative Court on 17 November 1982, in so far as they related to visits by the applicants to the children (see paragraphs 22 and 24 above); and secondly, those taken by the Council on 6 December 1983 and 30 October 1984, refusing the applicants’ requests for termination of care (see paragraphs 30-31 above). The Commission replied that it had followed its constant practice of considering the facts of the case as they stood at the time of the establishment of its report and that, during the course of its proceedings, the Government had not pleaded a failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of any of the said decisions. 56. The Court observes that all those decisions pre-dated the Commission’s hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case (15 May 1985) and that in the circumstances there was nothing to prevent the Government from raising a plea of non-exhaustion at that time (see, as the most recent authority, the Bozano judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 19, § 44). Furthermore, the questions of the applicants’ visiting rights and of the requests for discontinuance of care were referred to during that hearing. In addition, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that "a Party wishing to raise a preliminary objection must file a statement setting out the objection and the grounds therefor not later than the time when that Party informs the President of its intention not to submit a memorial ...". In the present case where no memorials on the merits were lodged (see paragraph 5 above) - the Government filed no such statement and raised their plea solely at the Court’s hearing. It must therefore be rejected as out of time. Furthermore, whilst the Court’s jurisdiction in contentious matters is determined by the Commission’s decision declaring the originating application admissible, it is competent, in the interests of the economy of the procedure, to take into account facts occurring during the course of the proceedings in so far as they constitute a continuation of the facts underlying the complaints declared admissible (see, as the most recent authority, the Weeks judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 21, § 37). In the Court’s view, the decisions in question can be regarded as falling into this category and the Commission acted properly in taking them into account. 57. On the other hand, the 1987 decisions concerning the prohibition on the removal of Helena and Thomas from their respective foster homes (see paragraph 32 above) are the subject of a further application which Mr. and Mrs. Olsson lodged with the Commission on 23 October 1987. Any new question raised therein cannot be settled by the Court in the present judgment (see the Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20, p. 13, § 34, and the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, loc. cit.). II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 (art. 8) OF THE CONVENTION A. Introduction 58. The applicants asserted that the decision to take the children into care, the manner in which it had been implemented and the refusals to terminate care had given rise to violations of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, which reads as follows: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=60525252&skin=hudoc-en&a... 10/13/2010