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 } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 8 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39771/19 A.H. against Norway lodged on 10 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a decision not to lift the care order for the applicant’s child, who was placed in foster care in 2015. On 12 December 2017 the County Social Welfare Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) decided not to meet the applicant’s application to have the care order in respect of her child lifted. The Board also decided that the applicant should have contact rights of one hour, once yearly. The child’s father’s contact rights were set at one hour, three times yearly. The child welfare services were authorised to supervise the contact sessions between the applicant and the child. On 22 June 2018 the District Court ( tingrett ) upheld the decision. On 31 October 2018 the High Court ( lagmannsrett ) refused the applicant leave to appeal against the District Court’s judgment. On 11 January 2019 the Supreme Court’s Appeals Leave Committee ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant submits that the refusal to lift the care order in respect of her child entailed an unnecessary interference with her right to respect for family life.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? (See, for example, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10   September 2019; and K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR   2001 ‑ VII.)