Search
document

Document text Analytics

OKERE and EDIAE v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 28103/95 • ECHR ID: 001-2771

Document date: February 26, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

OKERE and EDIAE v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 28103/95 • ECHR ID: 001-2771

Document date: February 26, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 28103/95

by Patricia OKERE and Stephan I. EDIAE

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

26 February 1996, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 3 July 1995 by

Patricia OKERE and Stephan I. EDIAE against the Netherlands and

registered on 3 August 1995 under file No. 28103/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

FACTS

The applicants are Nigerian citizens, born in 1967 and 1964

respectively, and residing in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands. Before the

Commission they are represented by Mr. L.B.J. Movig, a lawyer

practising in Den Helder, the Netherlands.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be

summarised as follows:

On 29 June 1990 the second applicant arrived in the Netherlands

where he requested asylum. He was granted refugee status on

15 March 1993.

The first applicant arrived in the Netherlands on

28 September 1991. Her request for asylum and a subsequent request for

a residence permit to remain as partner of a Mr. W. were both rejected

by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie).

In January 1993 the first applicant moved in with the second

applicant and they intended to marry in August 1993 when the first

applicant would also apply for a residence permit to remain as spouse

of the second applicant. However, as the first applicant's immigration

file was lost, both the wedding and the application for a residence

permit were postponed.

On 17 September 1993 new regulations came into force imposing

certain income requirements on the spouse of a person applying for a

residence permit. Before this date, people recognised as refugees did

not have to comply with any income requirement if they wished their

spouse to settle with them. The applicants married on 29 October 1993

and the new regulations were therefore applicable to the first

applicant's subsequent request for a residence permit made on

15 December 1993. The regulations require guaranteed employment for

twelve future months, or a history of regular employment during the

past three years. The second applicant has regular work through an

employment agency, but he may be laid off during slack periods.

On 25 August 1994 the Deputy Minister of Justice refused to grant

the first applicant a residence permit, considering that the second

applicant was at that time in receipt of unemployment benefits and did

therefore not comply with the regulations. The first applicant filed

an objection (bezwaarschrift) against this decision with the Deputy

Minister on 29 August 1994. She further requested the President of The

Hague Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) to grant an interim

measure (voorlopige voorziening) in order for her not to be expelled

pending the objection.

Following a hearing on 10 November 1994, the President rejected

the request for an interim measure. As he was of the opinion that the

objection filed by the first applicant stood no chance of success he

also rejected the objection. On 10 December 1994 the first applicant

requested the Regional Court to review (herzien) the decision of its

President and a hearing took place on 15 February 1995. The Regional

Court rejected the request for a review on 1 March 1995.

On 7 April 1995 the first applicant was ordered to leave the

Netherlands before 16 April 1995 but she did not do so. The first

applicant gave birth to a daughter on 15 June 1995.

On 2 November 1995 the applicants' representative informed the

Commission that the first applicant had been granted a residence

permit. The applicants wish to maintain the application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that

the expulsion of the first applicant would violate their, and their

daughter's, right to respect for their family life. They further argue

that no strict income requirements may be imposed on recognised

refugees who wish their spouse to live with them or that, in any case,

seasonal work through an employment agency may be considered as

complying with those requirements. In this respect they invoke Article

14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 3 July 1995 and registered on

3 August 1995.

On 7 July 1995 the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36 of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The applicants complain that the expulsion of the first applicant

as a result of the application of certain income requirements would be

contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.

The Commission notes that the first applicant has been granted

a residence permit and that, consequently, she will not be expelled.

In this situation the Commission finds that the matter which has

been the subject of the application has been resolved within the

meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. The Commission,

furthermore, having regard to Article 30 para. 1 in fine, finds no

special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in

the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the

application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant