CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2022

.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 20 June 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60074/21 Shakhnoza OMAROVA against the Netherlands lodged on 7 December 2021 communicated on 31 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a Kyrgyz national who has not been allowed to reside in the Netherlands, where her husband is living. Her asylum request was rejected as the national authorities did not find credible her account of the problems she allegedly experienced as a result of her marriage to an Uyghur political activist. The authorities examined ex officio under Article 8 of the Convention whether there were any insurmountable obstacles to practice family life in Kyrgyzstan and found that her husband, who had obtained Dutch nationality, would be able to join her there. The applicant complains that the refusal to allow her to reside with her husband in the Netherlands constitutes a violation of her right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. More in particular she alleges that the authorities have failed to strike a fair balance, noting that the relevant criteria developed in the Court’s case-law have not, or not properly, been taken into consideration. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES When refusing the applicant admittance to reside with her husband in the Netherlands, did the competent authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention?   In particular, when striking a balance between the interests involved, did those authorities and the domestic courts take sufficiently into account all relevant elements (see , mutatis mutandis, M.A. v. Denmark [GC], no.   6697/18, §§ 131-135 and § 149, 9 July 2021)?