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. 39717/19 E.H. against Norway lodged on 10 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns deprivation of the applicant’s parental responsibilities in respect of his son – who was born in 2015 and who had been in foster care since then – and to authorise his son’s adoption by the foster parents. A decision to that effect was first taken by the County Social Welfare Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) on 11 January 2018. On 5 July 2018 the decision was upheld by the City Court ( tingrett ). On 22 November 2018 the High Court ( lagmannsrett ) refused the parents – the applicant and the child’s mother – leave to appeal against the City Court’s judgment. On 28 January 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 submits that the above decision entailed an unnecessary interference with the right to respect for family life.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his 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).