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 } Communicated on 8 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44598/19 R.A. against Norway lodged on 12 August 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant contact rights in respect of his daughter, who was born in 2003 and who is in foster care. The girl was placed in public care in 2016, first on an emergency basis. Her parents – the applicant and the girl’s mother – subsequently consented to her placement in foster care. When the parents later, in 2017, withdrew their consent, the County Social Welfare Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) made a decision to continue the foster care and to grant the parents contact rights of two hours, six times yearly. The parents brought the case before the City Court ( tingrett ) for review. The City Court appointed an expert to examine the case, give a written report and oral evidence before it. In its judgment of 11 October 2018 the City Court upheld the decision to continue the foster care, but removed both parents’ contact rights. In the judgment, it was stated, inter alia , that the court-appointed expert during the hearing had explained that she had attempted to have the parents withdraw the case, in the light of the girl’s clear statements about the consequences it would entail if she were moved against her will, but that it had been futile. On 20 December 2018 the High Court ( lagmannsrett ) refused the parents’ leave to appeal against the District Court’s judgment. In 13 February 2019 the Supreme Court’s Appeals Leave Committee ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) dismissed the parents’ appeal against the High Court’s decision.   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant maintains that the refusal to grant him contact rights entailed an unnecessary interference with his right to respect for family life. Under Article 6 he submits that the trial was unfair and that the court-appointed expert was not impartial. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention Strand Lobben and   Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 6 of the Convention? If so, 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? Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?