Page 24 of 30 The Commission found nothing in the case-file to substantiate this allegation, which was contested by the Government. 93. The Court shares the view of the Commission and therefore rejects this claim. VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 (P1-2) 94. The applicants submitted that there had been a violation of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the Convention, which reads: "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." They argued that the violation had arisen because: (a) Thomas had been placed in a family who belonged to a religious denomination and attended church with him (see paragraph 20 above), whereas they did not wish their children to receive a religious upbringing; (b) the placement of the children so far away from the parents and without consultation as to the choice of foster home deprived the latter of the possibility of influencing the former’s education. The Government contested these claims. The Commission rejected the first and expressed no view on the second. 95. The Court agrees with the Commission that the fact that the children were taken into public care did not cause the applicants to lose all their rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2). It notes, however, as did the Commission, that Mr. and Mrs. Olsson, though describing themselves as atheists, have not left the Church of Sweden (see paragraph 8 above) and that there is no serious indication of their being particularly concerned, except at a rather late stage, with giving the children a non-religious upbringing. Neither have Mr. and Mrs. Olsson shown that in practice the general education of the children whilst in public care diverged from what they would have wished. 96. In these circumstances, no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) has been established. VII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 (art. 13+P1-2) 97. The applicants contended that, since no remedy was available to them in respect of the breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) allegedly resulting from Thomas’ being given a religious upbringing, they were victims of a breach of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, which provides: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity." 98. The Court agrees with the Commission and the Government that this claim has to be rejected. Leaving aside the possibility of seeking redress before the County Administrative Board, a parent could, after the entry into force of the 1980 Act, appeal to the County Administrative Court against a placement decision taken by a Social Council (see paragraph 50 in fine above). Both before and after that time, the question of a child’s religious upbringing could have been raised and examined in a request for termination of care (see paragraph 49 in fine above). There is nothing to suggest that these remedies, which were apparently not utilised by the applicants as regards Thomas’ upbringing, would not have been "effective", within the meaning of Article 13 (art. 13). VIII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) OF THE CONVENTION http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=60525252&skin=hudoc-en&a... 10/13/2010