Search
document

Document text Analytics

T.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19047/91 • ECHR ID: 001-2793

Document date: December 1, 1993

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

T.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19047/91 • ECHR ID: 001-2793

Document date: December 1, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 19047/91

by T.T.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 December 1993, 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

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 9 September 1991

by T.T. against the Netherlands and registered on 7 November 1991 under

file No. 19047/91;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Moroccan national, born in 1943, and residing

at Tanger, Morocco. He is unemployed. Before the Commission he is

represented by Mr. E.H. Pietersen, a legal adviser practising at Breda,

the Netherlands.

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

summarised as follows.

On 29 November 1965 the applicant entered the Netherlands and was

granted a permanent residence permit (vestigingsvergunning) on 28

February 1973. On 7 September 1973 his wife and two children were

granted a residence permit for family reunification.

In 1975 and 1979 two more children were born to the applicant and

his wife.

On 29 August 1980 the single judge in the Rotterdam Regional

Court trying criminal cases (politierechter) convicted the applicant

in absentia of repeated forgery and sentenced him to 6 weeks'

imprisonment.

On 21 December 1983 the Rotterdam Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) convicted the applicant of drug offences and

sentenced him to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment.

As a result, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van

Justitie), by decision of 6 September 1985, withdrew the applicant's

residence permit and declared him an undesirable alien (ongewenst

vreemdeling). On 4 October 1985 the applicant filed a request for

review (herzieningsverzoek) against this decision. The Deputy

Minister, following the advice of the Advisory Committee for Aliens

Affairs (Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken), rejected this

request on 31 December 1985.

On 27 January 1986 the applicant appealed to the Judicial

Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van

State). He left the Netherlands in 1986.

On 30 November 1987 the Judicial Division rejected the

applicant's appeal insofar as it concerned the withdrawal of his

permanent residence permit, but quashed the decision by which the

applicant had been declared an undesirable alien. It considered that

he should have the opportunity to come and visit his family in the

Netherlands on a tourist visa. Accordingly, by decision of 24 February

1988, the Deputy Minister of Justice reviewed his decision of 6

September 1985 by which the applicant had been declared an undesirable

alien.

In Morocco, the applicant unsuccessfully sought to be granted

access to the Netherlands for the purpose of family reunification and,

alternatively, to be granted a visa for a limited period in order to

visit his family. He appealed to the Judicial Division of the Council

of State on 16 June 1989.

On 24 January 1991 the applicant's wife and children applied, on

behalf of the applicant, for an authorisation for temporary residence.

By decision of 10 April 1991, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Minister

van Buitenlandse Zaken) rejected this request on the basis of the

applicant's conviction for drug offences. He found that this

interference with the applicant's right to respect for family life was

justified in a democratic society for the economic well-being of the

country within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.

On 7 May 1993, the applicant's representative was invited to

indicate whether the Judicial Division of the Council of State had

decided on the applicant's appeal of 16 June 1989 and whether an appeal

had been filed against the Minister's decision of 10 April 1991.

On 10 June 1993, the time-limit fixed for the submission of this

information was extended at the applicant's representative's request.

By telefax of 21 July 1993 the applicant's representative

requested a second extension of the time-limit on account of a sudden

illness. This extension was granted.

After expiry of this time-limit, the applicant's representative,

by telefax of 2 September 1993, for reasons of health, again requested

an extension of the time-limit until mid-November 1993. He was

informed that, if the requested information would be provided before

30 September 1993, it could be taken into account in a report to be

presented to the Commission at its forthcoming session.

By letter of 3 November 1993 the applicant's representative was

informed that the Commission would proceed with its examination of the

case and was warned that, in the circumstances of the case, the

Commission could conclude that the applicant does not wish to pursue

his application. No reaction to these letters has been received.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that

the Dutch authorities' refusal to grant him a residence permit to live

with his family in the Netherlands constitutes an unjustified

interference with his right to respect for his family life.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The applicant complains about the Dutch authorities' refusal of

a residence permit to live with his family in the Netherlands. He

invokes Article 8 of the Convention which guarantees to everyone the

right to respect for his family life.

The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to comply with

repeated requests to provide information relevant to his application.

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

Commission considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the

petition. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine,

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.

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