CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Communicated on 8 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36516/19 Ebrima Pa JALLOW against Norway lodged on 1 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Gambian national, living in Gambia, who has a son who lived with his mother – the applicant’s ex-wife – in Norway until the latter’s death there in 2017. The applicant and an aunt of the child – the applicant’s ex-wife’s sister – living in England, each applied to the courts in Norway to be given parental responsibilities in respect of the child upon his mother’s death. In the course of those proceedings, the applicant was not granted a visa to visit Norway and was thus, unlike the aunt, unable to attend the court hearings in person. Instead, he followed the proceedings via Skype. Nor did he meet the court-appointed expert or his son. In the final judgment, neither of the two claimants were granted parental responsibilities in respect of the boy. Invoking Article 8 and, in substance, Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant submits that his rights under those provisions were violated, insofar as, in particular, the refusal to issue a visa entailed that he was not allowed to attend any hearing in person; he had – unlike the other claimant – not been allowed to meet the court-appointed expert, and the latter had not observed any contact between him and his son. He also complains of the High Court having refused to postpone the appeal hearing and thereby, he maintains, effectively prevented him from being able to prepare his case adequately, as well as to challenge legally the refusal to issue a visa at a relevant time. Lastly, he maintains that his right to respect for family life was violated since he was not granted parental responsibilities in respect of his son. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected?   2.     Was there in any other aspect a breach of Articles 6 or 8 of the Convention as concerns the applicant’s procedural rights in connection with the proceedings relating to his claim to be awarded parental responsibilities in respect of his son? Did the decision-making process afford the requisite protection of the applicant’s interests as safeguarded by those provisions?   3.     Was there a breach of Article 8 of the Convention as concerns the applicant’s substantive rights under that provision, in so far as his claim to be granted parental responsibilities in respect of his son was declined?