Search
document

Document text Analytics

KESKIN v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19572/92 • ECHR ID: 001-2545

Document date: March 9, 1994

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

KESKIN v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19572/92 • ECHR ID: 001-2545

Document date: March 9, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 19572/92

by Ali KESKIN

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 March 1994, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 16 February 1992

by Ali KESKIN against the Netherlands and registered on 2 March 1992

under file No. 19572/92;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish citizen born in Aksaray (Turkey) in

1958. At the time of the introduction of the application, he was

residing in The Hague, the Netherlands. Before the Commission he is

represented by Mr. M.J. Mons, a lawyer practising in The Hague.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant came to the Netherlands in 1982, where, on

1 February 1985, he married a Dutch national. On 22 March 1985 the

applicant, who until that moment had been an illegal alien, obtained

a residence permit in order to live with his Dutch spouse. On

12 March 1986 the applicant obtained a permanent residence permit.

On 18 December 1985, a son was born out of the marriage. However,

in 1987, the applicant and his wife separated and divorced. The

applicant's residence permit was subsequently withdrawn.

On 25 April 1988 the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)

of The Hague awarded the legal guardianship to the mother, while the

applicant was appointed co-guardian (toeziend voogd). The Court

determined that the applicant could see his son once every two weeks.

As his residence permit had been withdrawn as a consequence of

his divorce, the applicant applied for a new residence permit on

11 April 1988. This request was refused by the Deputy Minister of

Justice on 7 June 1989.

On 21 July 1989, the applicant filed a request for review

(herziening) of this decision with the Deputy Minister of Justice. As

this request was not decided upon within the statutory time-limit of

three months, the applicant appealed to the Judicial Division of the

Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State) against

this presumed refusal (fictieve weigering) on 23 October 1989.

After having heard the applicant, the Advisory Committee on

Aliens Affairs (Adviescommissie vreemdelingenzaken), which advises the

Deputy Minister of Justice on requests for review, on 20 March 1990

advised to reject the applicant's request.

The Deputy Minister of Justice decided on 14 June 1990 that the

applicant was allowed to stay in the Netherlands, pending the appeal

proceedings before the Council of State.

After a hearing on 4 March 1991, the Judicial Division of the

Council of State rejected the applicant's appeal on 22 August 1991. In

respect of Article 8 of the Convention, the Judicial Division held

that, at the time the applicant requested a residence permit, family

life existed between him and his son. Nevertheless, the refusal to

grant him a residence permit was justified under para. 2 of Article 8,

as being necessary in the interest of the economic well-being of the

country.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained that the refusal of a residence permit

and the ensuing expulsion to Turkey unjustly interfered with his right

to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the

Convention.

2. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that

he did not receive a fair hearing before the Council of State as his

argument that he had a job and his employer had declared that he could

not be missed, was dismissed without valid reasons.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 16 February 1992 and registered

on 2 March 1992.

On 11 January 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to

communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite

them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of

the application.

By letter of 24 February 1994 the applicant's representative

informed the Commission that the applicant wishes to withdraw his

application, as he has been granted a residence permit in the meantime.

The Government have been informed accordingly.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having regard to Article 30 para. 1(a) of the Convention, the

Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his

application since he has been granted a residence permit. The

Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human

rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the

application to be continued, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in

fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant