Page 15 of 30 the 1980 Act (see paragraph 49 in fine above); (b) decisions taken by a Child Welfare Board under the 1960 Act relating, inter alia, to the visiting rights of the parents; (c) decisions taken by a Social Council under the 1980 Act as to where the care should commence; to change a placement decision; regulating the parents’ right of access; and not to disclose the child’s whereabouts to them (section 20 of the 1980 Act). According to the Government, the 1960 Act did not entitle a parent to appeal to the County Administrative Court against a placement decision as such, but the 1980 Act does. The Government maintained, however, that the applicants could at any time have raised before the County Administrative Board (see paragraph 41 above) - with the possibility of a subsequent appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal and thence to the Supreme Administrative Court - a plea that, as a result of their placement and contrary to the requirements of the 1960 Act, the children were not receiving proper care and education. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 51. In their application of 10 June 1983 to the Commission (no. 10465/83), Mr. and Mrs. Olsson alleged that the care decision and the subsequent placement of the children constituted a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention. They also invoked Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 13, art. 14), as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2), and complained that, contrary to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention, the exercise of their right to petition the Commission had been hindered. 52. On 15 May 1985, the Commission declared the application admissible, but decided to take no action with respect to the complaint under Article 25 (art. 25). In its report adopted on 2 December 1986 (Article 31) (art. 31), the Commission expressed the opinion that: (a) the care decisions concerning the applicants’ children in combination with their placement in separate foster homes and far away from the applicants constituted a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention (eight votes to five); (b) there had been no violation of Articles 3, 6, 13 or 14 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 13, art. 14) of the Convention or of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) (unanimous). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the partly dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to the present judgment. FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT 53. At the hearing on 21 September 1987, the Government requested the Court to hold "that there has been no violation of the Convention in the present case". AS TO THE LAW I. SCOPE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT 54. In the course of their submissions, the applicants made a number of general complaints concerning the alleged incompatibility with the Convention of, firstly, Swedish child-care law and, secondly, the practice of the Swedish courts. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=60525252&skin=hudoc-en&a... 10/13/2010