CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 9 April 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 42922/18 Farhiyo OMAR MOHAMUD against the Netherlands lodged on 25 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Somali mother of five who entered the Netherlands in 2009 and was granted asylum in 2014. Her application concerns the authorities’ refusal of a provisional-residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) to her two elder children (Somali nationals born in 2007 and 2008). At the time of the application the children were staying with their uncle in a refugee camp in Kampala, Uganda, and the visa would have allowed them to join the applicant in the Netherlands. The authorities refused the visa because the applicant’s income was insufficient to sponsor the children for residency and because the applicant did not qualify for an exemption. The authorities accepted the existence of “family life” between the applicant and her two elder children. They also accepted the existence of an objective impediment to the family’s reunion abroad because the applicant’s three younger children (Dutch nationals), were rooted in the Netherlands. However, the authorities put the public interest before the family’s private interest in reuniting. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the denial of family reunion violates her right to respect for her family life. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities engaged in a thorough balancing of the interests at stake, particularly taking into account the children’s best interests, and put forward relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions (see, for example, El   Ghatet v. Switzerland , no.   56971/10, 8 November 2016; Tuquabo ‑ Tekle and   Others v. the Netherlands , no. 60665/00, 1   December 2005; and I.A.A.   and   Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25960/13, 8 March 2016)?