CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 March 2020 Published on 30 March 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 569/20 Neima Aden ALLELEH and Others against Norway lodged on 23 December 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first and second applicants, Ms Neima Aden Alleleh and Mr   Rolf   Erik Kristensen, are Djibouti and Norwegian nationals who were born in 1983 and 1967 respectively. They also apply on behalf of their four children, Norwegian citizens born in 2005, 2009 and 2013 – the third to sixth applicants. The first applicant applied for asylum in Norway in 2001 under the pretext of being Somali. Her application was declined, but she married the second applicant in 2004 and was subsequently granted residency. It was since discovered that she was a Djibouti national who had provided false information to the authorities about her background. For those reasons, it was decided in 2015 to withdraw her Norwegian citizenship and order her expelled, with a two year-ban from re-entry. The decision to have the first applicant expelled was brought before the domestic courts for judicial review, and the Supreme Court ultimately rendered its final judgment in the case on 9 December 2019, where it upheld the expulsion. The second to sixth applicants had attempted to be party in the same proceedings before the domestic courts on the judicial review of the expulsion, but their applications had been declared inadmissible for lack of legal standing. In the course of the proceedings complained of, they acted therefore as interveners to support the first applicant ( partshjelpere ). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants maintain that the expulsion entailed a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have all six applicants, by way of their participation in the domestic proceedings and in the light of the submissions made in the course of those proceedings, exhausted all domestic remedies and applied to the Court within a period from six months from the date on which the final decision was taken, in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? (See, inter alia , Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.   17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-91, 25 March 2014.)   2.     Have there been violations of any of the applicants’ rights to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? (See, for example, Butt v. Norway , no. 47017/09, 4 December 2012; Antwi and Others v. Norway , no. 26940/10, 14 February 2012; and Nunez v. Norway , no.   55597/09, 28 June 2011.)