CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5B8CBD11 { width:86.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF815CF3A { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7C0B0EBB { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7E0D939 { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF53FD7AF { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 22 March 2021   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 25133/20 and 31856/20 A against Iceland and B against Iceland lodged on 19 June 2020 and 13 July 2020 respectively communicated on 4 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ loss of custody of their two children after the first applicant, A, was prosecuted and acquitted of sexual abuse of the children. In 2015, the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse of his two children, X and Y. The children were temporarily fostered outside the home but returned there later that year to live with B, once A had moved out. During the course of the investigation, B received guidance and support in caring for the children, and A was granted very limited visitation rights. Some time after returning to the family home, X was again placed in temporary foster care. Subsequently, Y was also placed in the same foster home. In 2017, A was indicted for repeated sexual abuse against both children. Later that year, he was acquitted of all charges by a district court. No appeal against that judgment was lodged. In 2017, the Child Protection Committee of the applicants’ municipality initiated civil proceedings to deprive the applicants of custody of both children. By a judgment of 6 June 2019, a district court ruled to deprive the applicants of custody. The applicants appealed against that judgment to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the district court’s findings and ruled in the applicants’ favour by a judgment of 1 November 2019. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment, ruling to deprive the applicants of custody by a judgment of 10 March 2020. The applicants complain under Article 8 that the Child Protection Committee’s procedure and the deprivation of custody violated their right to respect for their private and family life. They submit that the actions constituted an interference which was not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not necessary. Each applicant makes this complaint on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the children.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What is the current living and custody situation of X and Y? What visitation, if any, do they have with A and B respectively?   2.     Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Has there been an interference with the second applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   4.     Do the first and second applicants have locus standi to bring complaints on behalf of X and Y (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§ 156-158, 10 September 2019, and the sources cited therein)?   5.     Has there been an interference with X’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   6.   Has there been an interference with Y’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?     APPENDIX     Application no. 25133/20 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. A 1979 Icelandic Reykjavik     Application no. 31856/20 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. B 1976 Icelandic Reykjavik