CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50286/18 C.E. against Norway lodged on 12 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s child, a girl, had been placed in public care in 2012. In 2014 the applicant instituted proceedings to have the care order lifted. Her claim was unsuccessful because, among other things , the authorities considered that the girl would suffer serious harm were she removed from her foster home. In 2016 the applicant anew instituted proceedings to have the care order lifted. The authorities held at that occasion that, given the conclusion in the previous set of proceedings, the applicant could only demand a full review of the case if there had been a significant change in the child’s situation. Since no such change had been substantiated, the applicant’s claim was rejected. Under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant submits that the decision not to conduct a full new consideration of the case violated her right to “access to court” and a fair trial and her right to respect for family life. She further maintains that the decision not to discontinue the foster care for her child violated her right to respect for family life. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, through the decision not to discontinue the foster care of her child and on account of that decision having been taken without carrying out a full new review of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, for example, K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§   155 and 179, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII)?   2.     Does the application give rise to a separate issue under Article 6 of the Convention? If yes, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of “access to court” and a fair trial as guaranteed by that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, K.T. v. Norway , no. 26664/03, § 101, 25 September 2008)?