CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juillet 2016

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 3 August 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 43462/16 T.E. against the Netherlands lodged on 25 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms T.E., is a citizen of Mongolia, currently staying in the Netherlands. She is represented before the Court by Mr H.J. Janse, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The applicant entered the Netherlands in 2009 together with her son, who was born in 2003. She applied for asylum shortly after her arrival which was refused. In 2014 the applicant applied for asylum for the second time, submitting that she and her son had never left the Netherlands after her first asylum application had been refused. Her second application for asylum also ended unsuccessfully. complaints The applicant complains under Article 4 of the Convention that if she were expelled to Mongolia, she would be at risk of being forced back into prostitution and the Mongolian authorities would be unable to protect her. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that it is in the best interest of her minor child to remain in the Netherlands, and that the Netherlands, by denying her and her son residence permits, violated their right to respect for private and family life. QUESTIONS 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 4 of the Convention if she were expelled to Mongolia? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?