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. 38105/19 D.J. and P.J. against Norway lodged on 8 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a decision not to grant the first applicant legal contact rights in respect of her daughter, the second applicant, who was born in 2009 and who is in foster care. On 31 January 2018 the County Social Welfare Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) set the first applicant’s contact rights in respect of the second applicant at one hour, once a year. On 29 June 2018 the City Court ( tingrett ) decided not to grant any contact rights. On 29 April 2019 the High Court ( lagmannsrett ) upheld the City Court’s judgment. On 2 July 2019 the Supreme Court’s Appeals Leave Committee ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment.   Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants maintain that the refusal to grant the first applicant contact rights in respect of the second applicant entailed a violation of their right to respect for their 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 instance, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019; and Jansen v. Norway , no. 2822/16, 6 September 2018.)