Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 15927/89

by D.G.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19

October 1992, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

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 6 December 1989

by D.G. against the Netherlands and registered on 20 December 1989

under file No. 15927/89;

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, probably born in 1962, is of unknown nationality.

At the time he introduced the application he was residing in Rotterdam,

the Netherlands. Before the Commission he is represented by Mrs.

G.E.M. Later, a lawyer practising in The Hague.

The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.

The applicant states that he was born in Lebanon and that he

moved to France with his mother when he was about nine years old. He

does not know his father. Shortly after his arrival in France the

applicant started to wander through Europe. When he tried to visit his

mother in Bordeaux, France, in 1973 or 1974 he was informed that she

had died.

As from 1985 the applicant has intermittently lived in the

Netherlands. He has been apprehended in the Netherlands on several

occasions on the suspicion of having committed theft. He has been

expelled from the Netherlands for unlawful residence on 9 December

1985, 21 July 1986 and 16 December 1986. He is known by the

Netherlands authorities under several different identities.

On 5 January 1987 the applicant's lawyer requested a residence

permit for the applicant on the basis of compelling humanitarian

reasons.

On 11 January 1987 the applicant was apprehended as an illegal

alien in the Netherlands and detained on remand pending his expulsion.

The request for a residence permit was rejected by the Head of

the local police in The Hague on 12 January 1987.

On 23 January 1987 the applicant submitted a request to the

Deputy Minister of Justice to reconsider the decision of 12 January

1987. The applicant's request to suspend his expulsion pending his

request for reconsideration was rejected by the Deputy Minister.

On 13 February 1987 the President of the Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague, in summary proceedings,

rejected the applicant's request for an injunction concerning his

expulsion pending the proceedings in respect of his application for a

residence permit. The President considered, inter alia, that the

applicant had not referred to any facts or circumstances from which

special ties between the applicant and the Netherlands had become

apparent. In view of the fact that the applicant, who does not speak

Dutch, speaks some French and has declared never to have been expelled

from France, the President considered that the Netherlands is not the

most obvious country for the applicant to reside in and that,

therefore, the chance that his request for reconsideration would be

successful is very limited.

On 26 February 1987 the applicant was released from his detention

on remand.

On 1 June 1987 the Deputy Minister of Justice rejected the

applicant's request for reconsideration. The Deputy Minister

considered there were no reasons to grant the applicant a residence

permit on humanitarian grounds.

The applicant's subsequent appeal to the Judicial Division of the

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

rejected on 16 June 1989. The Judicial Division considered, inter

alia, that it could not be held that the Deputy Minister, after having

weighed all interests involved, took an unreasonable decision. The

Judicial Division also took into account that it had not appeared that

the applicant himself had taken any initiative in France to establish

his identity and nationality, whereas the Netherlands authorities had

sufficiently tried to establish his identity and nationality.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his repeated expulsions from the

Netherlands since 1985, effected despite the fact that, in view of the

uncertainty of his identity and nationality, he has no place to go,

violate his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his

request for a residence permit are not in conformity with the

requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that

he did not receive a thorough examination of his case by the

Netherlands authorities.

4. The applicant finally complains under Article 5 para. 1 (f) and

Article 6 of the Convention that he was repeatedly placed in detention

on remand pending his expulsion.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 6 December 1989 and registered

on 20 December 1989.

On 7 November 1990 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application.

The Government's observations were submitted on 1 March 1991.

By letter of 5 March 1991 the applicant was invited to submit his

observations in reply.

When the time-limit for the submission of the applicant's

observations in reply expired on 23 April 1991, no observations in

reply had been received. The applicant's lawyer's request by

letter of 16 May 1991 to extend the time-limit for the submission of

the observations in reply was rejected by the President of the

Commission on 29 May 1991 for having been lodged out of time. By letter

of 16 July 1992 the applicant was informed that the Commission would

proceed with its examination of the case and was warned that, in view

of the circumstances of the case, the Commission could conclude that

the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. No reaction

of the applicant has been received.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that applicant has been invited on 5 March

1991 to submit his observations in reply to the observations presented

by the Netherlands Government on the admissibility and merits of the

application. The Commission notes that the applicant, whose last

correspondence dates back to 16 May 1991, has not replied to this

invitation, notwithstanding the reminder sent to him on 16 July 1992.

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

Commission concludes from the above that the applicant does not wish

to pursue his application. The Commission finds no special

circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the

Convention which require the 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 Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)

Menu

G. v. THE NETHERLANDS

G. v. THE NETHERLANDS

LEXI