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. 53471/17 E.M. and Others against Norway lodged on 18 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings in which a care order for two children was upheld, contact rights for their mother were refused and the latter’s parental responsibilities for one of the children were withdrawn The applicants complain that the above entailed an unnecessary interference with their right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and, if yes, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in order to pursue a legitimate aim under the second paragraph of that provision? (See, inter alia , Jansen v. Norway , no. 2822/16, 6 September 2018; and K. and T. v.   Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 177-179, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII.)