Search
document

Document text Analytics

ZOGJANI v. FINLAND

Doc ref: 25411/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2298

Document date: September 13, 1995

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

ZOGJANI v. FINLAND

Doc ref: 25411/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2298

Document date: September 13, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 25411/94

by Bashkim ZOGJANI

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 13 September 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 September 1994

by Bashkim Zogjani against Finland and registered on 12 October 1994

under file No. 25411/94;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 16 June 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Kosovo-Albanian allegedly of Albanian

nationality born in 1959. He is a lawyer and resides in Kerava,

Finland. He is represented by Ms. Arijeta Dani, a nurse from Kerava.

On 12 March 1993 the applicant was granted a residence permit

apparently for weighty humanitarian reasons. It appears that presently

the applicant holds a permanent residence permit. According to a record

of an interview with the applicant carried out by the Finnish police

on 12 March 1993, he stated in two contexts that he had been engaged

to S since March 1989 and that they had been "cohabiting partners". In

one context S was referred to as the applicant's "spouse". According

to the applicant he had already on his arrival in Finland stated to the

authorities that S was his wife.

In July 1993 the applicant requested that S be granted a

residence permit on humanitarian grounds in order to join him in

Finland. The applicant submitted a copy of a marriage certificate

issued by the Islamic parish in Kosovo, former Yugoslavia, according

to which the applicant and S had contracted marriage on 18 March 1989.

In its opinion to the competent Finnish Consulate of 22 July 1994

the Aliens Centre of the Ministry of the Interior opposed the granting

of a residence permit to S. Subsequently the competent Finnish

Consulate refused to grant S a residence permit.

The applicant complains of lack of respect for his family life

as S has not been permitted to enter Finland in order to join him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 2 September 1994 and registered

on 12 October 1994.

On 17 May 1995 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to bring the application to the

notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

16 June 1995. The Government informed the Commission that the applicant

married S on 30 December 1994 in Kosovo, former Yugoslavia. He has

presented a valid certificate of their marriage, dated 6 February 1995.

For this reason the Aliens Centre supported in its fresh opinion of

11 April 1995 the granting of a residence permit to S. For the

above-mentioned reasons the Finnish Embassy in Sofia decided on

25 May 1995 to grant S a residence permit for Finland for six months.

On the basis of section 72 a of the Aliens Act any future requests from

S for a residence permit will be decided by the Aliens Centre.

By letter of 22 June 1995 the Commission's Secretariat forwarded

these observations to the applicant's representative. In accordance

with the Commission's instructions, a time-limit expiring on

1 August 1995 was fixed for any observations in reply. There was no

reaction on the applicant's part.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Noting that the applicant's wife S has been granted a temporary

residence permit the Commission finds, in accordance with Article 30

para. 1 (c) of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to

continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, it finds no

special circumstances regarding respect for Human Rights, as defined

in the Convention, which require the continuation of the examination

of the application. It follows that the application should be struck

out of the Commissions's list of cases.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant