Communicated on 2 October 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 20102/19 Dan Mikael HERNEHULT against Norway lodged on 24 March 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant has two children who a re in foster care (see case no. 14652/16).

On 26 August 2016, through counsel, he applied to the child welfare authorities to have the care order lifted.

On 8 November 2016 the County Social Welfare Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ), through its chairperson, dismissed the application.

The applicant brought the Board ’ s decision before the District Court ( tingrett ) which, on 21 April 2017, quashed it and returned the case to the Board.

On 13 December 2017 the Board, upon having held a hearing, decided that the care order should be maintained. It also fixed the applicant ’ s – and the children ’ s mother ’ s – contact rights at four hours, three times yearly. Moreover, it decided that the parents should not be allowed to contact the children by telephone, Skype or in any other digital manner. Lastly, it decided to deprive both parents of parental responsibilities in respect of both children.

On 16 March 2018 the District Court ( tingrett ) gave judgment in which it changed the contact rights to four hours, four times yearly. It also decided not to deprive the parents of parental responsibilities. In other aspects it upheld the Board ’ s decision.

On 20 July 2018 the High Court ( lagmannsrett ) refused the parents leave to appeal against the District Court ’ s judgment.

On 28 September 2018 the Supreme Court ’ s Appeals Leave Committee ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) dismissed the parents ’ appeal against the High Court ’ s decision.

Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant submits that his right to respect for his family life has been violated since the domestic authorities refused to lift the care order and decided to grant him only very limited contact rights.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? (See, for example, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019.)