CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 7 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58880/19 L.S. and O.V. against Norway lodged on 24 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are two Norwegian nationals, parents of the children X, born in July 2014 and Y, born in January 2011. On 2 May 2015, under an emergency care order, the applicants’ two children were placed in separate foster homes. A decision regarding X on a care order and placement in a foster home was given by the County Social Welfare Board ( Fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) on 30   June 2015, setting the contact rights for the applicant parents at two hours, four times per year. On 6 April 2016 the District Court ( tingretten ) upheld the decision on a care order and placement in a foster home, and reduced the contact rights of the biological parents to one hour, twice a year. On 29 July 2016 the High Court ( lagmannsretten ) refused leave to appeal. On 24 March 2017 the Board gave a decision withdrawing the applicants’ parental responsibilities in respect of X and allowing his foster parents to adopt him. The decision was upheld on 26 October 2017 by judgment of the District Court and on 10 September 2018 by the High Court, and on 26 April 2019 the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ) refused leave to appeal against the High Court judgment. The national courts held in general that the child’s need for stability in his relationships, particularly in the light of the lack of emotional attachment to the biological parents and their stated intention of seeking reunion with X at a later stage, gave sufficient reason to allow adoption. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants submit that their right to respect for their family life was violated by the decision to withdraw the applicants’ parental responsibilities for their son, X, and allow his foster parents to adopt him. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the decision to withdraw the applicants’ parental responsibilities for their son and allow his foster parents to adopt him, (see, in particular, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10   September 2019)?