Search
document

Document text Analytics

ELAINOUNI AND LAAMRANI v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15946/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1751

Document date: May 11, 1992

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

ELAINOUNI AND LAAMRANI v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15946/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1751

Document date: May 11, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 15946/90

by Abdullah ELAINOUNI and Chama LAAMRANI

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 11

May 1992, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

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 2 November 1989

by Abdullah ELAINOUNI and Chama LAAMRANI against the Netherlands and

registered on 5 January 1990 under file No. 15946/90;

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 applicants are a married couple holding Moroccan citizenship.

They were born in 1944 and 1960 respectively and are at present

residing in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Before the Commission they are

represented by Mr. E.M. van den Brom, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

The applicants have complained under Article 6 of the Convention

that the decision to refuse a residence permit to their nephew, whom

they consider as their adoptive son, was not taken by an independent

and impartial tribunal.

The applicants have further complained that their right to

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

Convention was unjustly interfered with by the authorities' refusal to

grant their nephew a residence permit.

The applicants' nephew has recently been granted a residence

permit by the Netherlands authorities.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 2 November 1989 and registered

on 5 January 1990.

On 2 September 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and the merits of the

complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

The Government's observations were submitted on 14 January 1992.

By letter of 14 February 1992 the applicants' representative

informed the Commission that the applicants wish to withdraw the

application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicants wish to withdraw their

application, since their nephew has in the meantime been granted a

residence permit by the Netherlands authorities. The Commission

concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue their petition

within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention. It

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 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant