[ad_1]
It was notable when the case of the forced adoption of the Norwegian girl Trudes was brought to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (EMD).
The overwhelming verdict, issued by 17 judges in Strasbourg on September 10, 2019, has already led to major changes in Norwegian children’s well-being.
Now, the big EMD chamber has considered another Norwegian child welfare case.
– I’m pleasantly surprised. This is huge.Two Norwegian child welfare cases at the EMD warehouse in such a short time is historic, says attorney Anna Lutina at the Alm law firm.
Won
She represents the mother of Somali children, Mariya, who came to Norway as a refugee in early 2010 with her little baby. She was 16 then.
The child was first placed in foster care, then forcibly adopted into foster parents.
The woman, who is Muslim, strongly objected to her son being placed and then adopted by a family belonging to a Christian denomination.
On December 17 of last year, the EMD issued a ruling in the case, in a chamber of seven judges.
The EMD stated that child welfare intervention represents a violation of the mother’s human rights and that, in the opinion of the EMD, forced adoption is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
– I was so happy when I received this verdict. I’ve been waiting for this since 2016. That was the last time I saw my son. Now my goal is to get in touch with him, Mariya told Dagbladet the same day the verdict fell.
see more
Religion Strife
After thinking about it, she, in consultation with her lawyer, came to appeal the unanimous victory to the great chamber of the EMD.
They were satisfied that the court found the violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, which refers to the right to family life, but also complained to Norway about the violation of Article 9 of the ECHR, which deals with the right to religious freedom.
– We feel that the reasons given by the court were not good enough. This with the right to religious freedom was not adequately addressed. The court decided to incorporate Article 9 into Article 8, says lawyer Lutina and explains:
– In the appeal to the Great Hall, we focus on Article 9. We are not only talking about the cultural aspect, but also the religious one. We believe there is a need to set limits on how child welfare should regulate religious practice for parents and children. The child welfare service must deal with such cases every day, so we firmly believe that this issue matters beyond itself, with which the EMD now agrees, Lutina says.
Tonight, Dagbladet contacted the Government Prosecutor to comment to the state that another Norwegian child welfare case has been prosecuted in the large EMD chamber, but has not yet received a response.
see more
– Tight needle eye
Karl Harald Søvig, professor and dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Bergen, is an expert in the cases of Article 8 of the ECHR, which deals with the right to family life.
He hadn’t seen another Norwegian child welfare case taken to the EMD warehouse.
– Entering the main room is a tight needle eye, says Søvig.
The fact that cases fall into the big EMD chamber is one of the oddities. Only exceptionally, the court opens the appeal process there.
Of 1014 judges in Strasbourg in 2018, only 14 sentences were handed down in the Grand Chamber.
The professor thinks it is interesting that the EMD now addresses Article 9 of the ECHR.
– There have been few cases in the DME on the relationship between article 8 and article 9, he points out.
The expert further believes that the matter raises interesting questions for Norwegian child welfare.
– There are several cases related to children and parents from other cultural origins. So far, this case has an interest beyond itself for Norwegian conditions, says Søvig.
Under Scrutiny
The Court of Human Rights has really brought Norwegian child welfare under control.
Since the court decided to examine the Trude case more closely in December 2015, the EMD has considered 37 other Norwegian child welfare cases.
So far, nine cases have been transmitted. Norway is sentenced in seven and acquitted in two.
Do you want to argue?
