Communicated on 4 May 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27496/15 Ivan MOHAMED HASAN against Norway lodged on 3 June 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ivan Mohamed Hasan, is an Iraqi national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Gjøvik . She is represented before the Court by Mr B. Vikanes , a lawyer practising in Oslo.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 2006 the applicant moved to Norway, after having married C., an Iraqi national who had come to Norway in 1999. The couple had two daughters together, A., born in February 2008, and B., born in June 2010.

On 17 November 2010 Østfold County Social Affairs Board ( Fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker – hereafter “the Board”) decided on emergency placement of A. and B. to protect them following repeated allegations of domestic violence by C. against the applicant. Subsequently, on 23 December 2010, Fredrikstad Child Care Protection Services ( Barneverntjenesten ) requested the Board to take the children into permanent public care.

On 21 June 2011, when the applicant visited A. and B. at a child centre, the children were kidnapped on the order of C., by masked men who stunned the applicant using a stun gun. C. ’ s plan was to take A. and B. to Iraq. However, after one day the children were found with their father, still in Norway. C. was subsequently convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to imprisonment. However, by that time he had already left Norway for Iraq. A. and B. were after the incident given new names which were kept confidential. The applicant subsequently divorced C.

On 24 June 2011 the Board decided to take A. and B. into permanent public care and to place them in a foster home at a secret location. No contact rights were granted to the applicant or C. The decision was upheld by Fredrikstad City Court ( tingrett ) on 21 November 2011 and by Borgarting High Court ( lagmannsrett ) on 22 October 2012. A request for leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ) on 19 December 2012.

On 25 February 2014 the Board deprived the applicant and C. of parental responsibility over A. and B., while at the same time rejecting the requests for contact rights and termination of the public care. The Board also approved the adoption of A. and B. by the foster parents. An oral hearing was held, lasting for two days and where one witness and one expert were heard.

The decision was upheld by the City Court on 9 September 2014. An oral hearing was held for two days, where the same expert was heard as before the Board. At the outset, the court stressed that it was the best interest of the children which was of central importance. It then noted that A. and B. had lived through many traumatic experiences as they had witnessed C. being violent against the applicant, having had to move to various crisis centres with the applicant and in between move back home to a violent father. They had also been kidnapped by masked men. They now suffered from separation anxiety and had formed a strong attachment to their foster parents. Moreover, the court noted that the last contact between A. and B. and the applicant had been on the day of the kidnapping on 21 June 2011. As they had not seen her since, A. and B. no longer had any real attachment to their mother. Furthermore, the risk of C. attempting another kidnapping was still real and would increase if the applicant re-established contact with A. and B. This risk was also emphasised in a threat assessment made by the police and the court did not trust that the applicant would be capable of protecting A. and B. against threats from C. even though her situation was more stable and she had established an independent life away from C. In conclusion, the court found that it would be in the children ’ s best interest not to be returned to the applicant or have any contact with her but to be adopted by their foster parents.

Upon appeal by the applicant, on 8 December 2014, the High Court refused leave to appeal. In its reasons, it referred to Article 8, considering that it was clear that the impugned measures were not in violation of the said provision.

The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 5 February 2015.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the measures to deprive her of parental responsibility, consent to the foster parents ’ adoption and to deny her contact rights with A. and B. violate her right to 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, on account of the measures to refuse contact rights, deprive her of parental responsibility and approve the adoption of A. and B.?