CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 août 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     FIRST SECTION Application no. 48932/13 M.B.J. against Norway lodged on 2 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant is an Ethiopian national who, unsuccessfully, applied for asylum in Norway. She is represented before the Court by the Aire Centre in London (Mr A. Weiss) and by the Norwegian law firm Endresen, Brygfjeld and Torrall. COMPLAINTS The applicant’s representatives complain that the applicant’s deportation to Ethiopia would be in violation of Articles 2 (in substance) and 3 of the Convention. They also complain that the applicant will be subjected to a collective expulsion to Ethiopia in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 and that there will be a breach of Article 13, in conjunction with the above ‑ mentioned provisions, as the applicant has no remedy with automatic suspensive effect against the proposed collective expulsion. QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS 1.     Has the applicant failed to fulfill the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Would the applicant’s deportation to Ethiopia be incompatible with Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     The Government are requested to submit an English translation of the Immigration Appeals Board’s decision of 27 September 2012, a copy of the Directorate of Immigration’s decision of 9 August 2011 and of other domestic decisions relevant to the applicant’s case.