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. 12825/20 Å.N. against Norway lodged on 29 February 2020 communicated on 15 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings in which care orders were issued in respect of the applicant’s four children and limitations were imposed on her right to contact with them. The domestic case ended with two decisions by the Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee of 18 October 2019. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   2.     In the light of the High Court’s decision of 12 February 2019 where that court did not grant leave to the applicant in respect of her accessory appeal concerning the care order and the applicant’s not having appealed against that decision, is any part of her application lodged with the Court inadmissible because all domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with Article 35 of the Convention?   3.     In the light of the High Court’s decision of 27 June 2019 and the reasons stated therein, where that court on procedural grounds rejected several claims submitted by the applicant, including a claim relating to contact between the children, and the Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee’s decision of 18 October 2019 (in its case HR-2019-1938-U), where it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision, is any part of the application lodged with the Court inadmissible because all domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with Article 35 of the Convention?