Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 8 June 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 51860/19 F.K. against Norway lodged on 26 September 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, a Turkish national currently residing in Turkey, is married to B, a Norwegian woman. The applicant and B married in August 2011. They are the parents of X, born in Turkey in March 2014.

During a stay in Norway a care order and placement in a foster home regarding X was implemented. The decision was upheld by the City Court by a judgment of 27 October 2015. The applicant had at this point in time a ban against entry into Norway.

On 12 January 2017 the applicant and X initiated proceedings before the County Social Welfare Board ( Fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) for reconsideration of the contact rights. On 23 March 2017 the Board set the contact rights for the applicant at two hours, twice per year, which were to be conducted only when the applicant was present in Norway, and he was refused contact with X by telephone, electronic communication devices or through social media. The applicant and B appealed against the decision.

On 29 August 2017 the Board ’ s decision was upheld in the District Court ( tingrett ).

In February 2018 the ban against entry was lifted. The applicant visited Norway, after being granted a visitor ’ s visa, on two occasions, during which he participated in contact sessions with X.

On 4 January 2019 the High Court set the contact rights for the applicant at two hours six times per year, but upheld the ban on contact with his child by telephone or through electronic communication devices or social media.

In January 2019 the applicant applied for family reunion in Norway.

On 4 February 2019 the applicant appealed against the High Court ’ s judgment. He submitted that as long as the applicant ’ s application for family reunion was pending he would, in keeping with the long-held practice of the Immigration Authorities, be denied a visitor ’ s visa, and that thus the denial of use of electronic communication devices effectively would deny him all contact with his child while the application was pending. The processing time was estimated by the applicant to be 14 months. Although the applicant had the possibility to apply for such a visa while his application for family reunion was pending, it appears from the application form that the applicant had not submitted such an application.

On 26 March 2019 the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ), in a summary decision, refused the applicant leave to appeal.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant submits that his right to respect for his family life was violated by the decision to refuse him contact with his child X by use of electronic communication devices while he was barred from meeting with X in person.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s rights under Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the national authorities ’ assessments regarding the decisions to refuse him permission to take part in contact sessions with his child X through use of telephone or electronic communication devices (see, in particular, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019)?

In particular, did the national authorities take all the necessary measures that could reasonable be required of them, in the light of the facts of the case, to maintain the links between the applicant and his child (see, for instance, Jansen v. Norway , no. 2822/16 , §§ 103-104, 6 September 2018, Gnahoré v. France , no. 40031/98, § 63, ECHR 2000 ‑ IX, and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) , 24 March 1988, §§ 81-83, Series A no. 130)?