Search
document

Document text Analytics

SAHSI v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 12292/86 • ECHR ID: 001-453

Document date: October 13, 1987

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

SAHSI v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 12292/86 • ECHR ID: 001-453

Document date: October 13, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12292/86

by Recef SAHSI

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 13 October 1987 the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 9 June 1986

by Recef SAHSI against the Netherlands and registered

on 29 July 1986 under file N° 12292/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the Government's proposal to grant a

residence permit to the applicant's son and daughter and its subequent

awarding of the permit;

Having regard to the affirmation of the applicant to have the

application withdrawn;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

&_THE FACTS&S

The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the

applicant may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born on 11 June 1954 and

at present residing in Hilversum, the Netherlands. In the proceedings

before the Commission he is represented by Mr. N. Schaar, a lawyer

practising at Bussum, the Netherlands.

In 1975, the applicant was divorced in Turkey. His two

children, a daughter born on 1 January 1973 and a son born on

1 March 1974, stayed with him since his former wife had left.

On 27 July 1976, the applicant remarried a Turkish woman, who

had entered the Netherlands on 15 February 1975 in the framework of

family reunification.

The applicant entered the Netherlands on 31 July 1977.

Having reported himself to the Head of the local police at Hilversum

he was granted a conditional residence permit, allowing him to stay

with his spouse and to work. On 4 November 1982 the applicant was

given a permanent residence permit (vestigingsvergunning).

The applicant left his two children in the care of his mother

when he went to the Netherlands, but he apparently continued to pay

for their upbringing and visited them every year.

It appears that the applicant brought his son to the

Netherlands on 14 September 1985 because his mother was not capable of

raising the children any longer. The applicant requested a residence

permit for his child, but this was refused by the Head of the local

police at Hilversum on 23 October 1985.

Thereupon, the applicant introduced a request for revision

with the Deputy Minister of Justice.

Having obtained the advice of the Advisory Committee for

Aliens' Affairs (Adviescommissie van Vreemdelingenzaken) on

24 January 1986, which recommended that the request be rejected, the

Deputy Minister of Justice rejected the applicant's request on

21 February 1986.

The Deputy Minister considered, inter alia, that according

to Dutch immigration policy any spouses and minor children who had

actually belonged to the family could, under certain conditions, be

allowed to join aliens holding residence permits in the Netherlands.

The applicant's son could not be considered as having actually

belonged to the family abroad, but had stayed with his grandmother in

Turkey until 14 September 1985. Moreover, the applicant had not

demonstrated that he had transferred money to his mother. It was also

noted that the child's grandmother, his sister and two married aunts

were still living in Turkey.

The applicant's son left the Netherlands on 11 May 1986.

&_COMPLAINTS&S

The applicant complains that the Netherlands authorities,

by refusing to grant his minor child a residence permit, violated

their right to respect for their family life and their right to

maintain their family. He invokes Articles 8 and 12 of the

Convention.

In addition, the applicant complains that the Deputy Minister

of Justice did not decide on his claims under the Convention.

&_PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S

The application was introduced on 9 June 1986 and registered

on 29 July 1986.

On 11 December 1986 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of

the application.

On 31 March 1987 the Government informed the Secretariat that

they would not submit any written observations because the Netherlands

authorities had decided to grant both the applicant's son and daughter

a residence permit if so requested.

On 22 April 1987 the applicant's lawyer informed the

Secretariat, in reply to the Government's proposal, that he would

withdraw the application as soon as the residence permits had been

obtained.

On 2 September 1987 the lawyer confirmed that the applicant

had obtained the residence permits and that he now wanted to withdraw

the application.

&_REASONS FOR THE DECISION&S

The Commission notes that the applicant no longer seeks to

maintain his application because he has obtained residence permits for

his son and daughter.

Furthermore, it considers that there is no general ground

relating to the observance of the Convention which justifies further

examination of the present application.

Having regard to Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of its Rules of

Procedure, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant