CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2021

.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 } Published on 9 August 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 16998/20 I.M. against Norway lodged on 27 March 2020 communicated on 15 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE An emergency placement decision was taken in respect of the applicant’s son on the day when he was born in 2016. Later in that year a care order was issued, and in 2018 the County Social Welfare Board decided to authorise that the persons with whom he had been placed adopt him. No post-adoption contact was set. The proceedings ended with a decision of the Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee of 27 September 2019. 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?   The parties are invited to include any comments they may wish on whether the circumstances relating to the applicant’s giving birth and the emergency placement decision taken and implemented on the same day have a bearing on the assessment of whether there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.