CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2021

.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 }   Published on 31 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 19632/20 Z.A. against Ireland lodged on 5 May 2020 communicated on 10 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Invoking Article 8, read alone and together with Article 13, the applicant complains that his deportation to Nigeria following his conviction for sexual offences and road traffic offences, which he argues would entail an indefinite period of exclusion from Ireland, would disproportionately interfere with his right to respect for his family life and private life; and that he had no effective remedy for the alleged breach as the High Court, on judicial review, applied the “reasonableness” test and its decision could only be appealed if the court certified a point of law of exceptional public importance. The applicant was born in 1994 and entered Ireland in 2001; his mother and six siblings are Irish citizens. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies with regard to his complaints under Article 8 and Article 13?   2.     Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, for example, Boultif v.   Switzerland , no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001 ‑ IX; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII and Ndidi v. the United Kingdom , no.   41215/14, 14 September 2017), did the applicant’s deportation constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for his family life and private life enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Did the decision-making process leading to the applicant’s deportation satisfy procedural requirements under Article 8?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     The applicant is requested to send copies of the transcripts of the High Court hearing within 6 weeks.