Re: Norsko prohrálo před Štrasburským soudem

Tak letos další dva:

1. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-213406%22]}

Jako vejce vejci: " Turning to the limitations that were imposed on the applicant’s right to contact with X, it is incumbent on the Court to carry out a “stricter scrutiny” of those measures (see Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, § 211). In that connection, it notes that already when the child welfare services applied for the care order, they deemed that it would be a long term placement and that restrictions on the applicant’s right to contact with X should therefore be imposed (see paragraph 14 above). In response, the Board, and, on appeal, the District Court, carried out assessments of whether the care order would likely become long-term, and both instances concluded in the affirmative (see paragraphs 18 and 29 above). There are no indications of any of those authorities’ having assessed whether more frequent contact between the applicant and X could contribute to avoiding that the placement might end up long-term.

The Court reiterates in connection with the above that, in addition to the general observation that the ties between members of a family and the prospects of their successful reunification will per force be weakened if impediments are placed in the way of their having easy and regular access to each other, it has emphasised more specifically that arrangements in which weeks – and even months – pass between the times that the parent and the child are allowed to meet cannot generally be considered to support the aim of reunification (see, for example, M.L. v. Norway, cited above, § 79). In the instant case, the contact rights in respect of the applicant and her daughter were – in contrast to the general starting point for the assessment of contact rights under Article 8 of the Convention – set at two hours, three times yearly (see paragraphs 18 and 29 above)."

Závěr: "there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the care order issued in respect of the applicant’s child;
there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the limitations that were imposed on the applicant’s right to contact with her child;
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 25,000 "


2. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-213407%22]}

Vše podle jednoho mustru: "An emergency placement decision had been made in respect of X shortly after his birth and the applicant was not party to those proceedings. In the following proceedings concerning the care order, the Board granted the applicant contact rights at only two hours, four times per year, under supervision, due to its considering that the care order would be long-term"

Závěr: "there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 25,000"