Published on 13 June 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 14368/22 Heba Yousef Ibrahim ALNEEL against Norway lodged on 4 March 2022 communicated on 24 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a refusal to grant the applicant a temporary residence permit in Norway for the purpose of family immigration together with her spouse, a man of Sudanese origin who became a citizen in Norway in 2016. The applicant is a Sudanese national who lived in Sudan where the couple met in 2017 and married in 2018. The applicant’s request for a temporary residence permit was submitted at the Norwegian Embassy in Khartoum in 2019 and she had no other links to Norway at the time.

Under domestic law, one of the conditions for family immigration was that both parties were above 24 years of age, a condition from which exceptions could be made where it was evident that the marriage was voluntary. Whereas the applicant’s request for a temporary residence permit for the purpose of family immigration was initially refused by reference to that condition, her application to have the refusal judicially reviewed by reference to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the applicant could not rely on the Convention because Norway was not considered to have exercised jurisdiction in her case.

In her application to the Court she complained that the refusal was unnecessary and discriminatory, contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the applicant’s complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent State, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?