Communicated on 23 November 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4965/10 Jamha HADDAOUCHI against the Netherlands lodged on 18 January 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Jamha Haddaouchi , is a Netherlands national, who was born in 1975 and, as far as the Court is aware, lives in Rotterdam. She is represented before the Court by Mr R.S. Wijling , a lawyer practising in Rotterdam.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. The applicant was a resident of Rotterdam from 1980 until August 2006.

4. In August 2006 the applicant moved with her three children to Antwerp. In late January 2008 she and her children moved back to Rotterdam. She took up residence in an apartment on P. Street 20C.

5. P. Street is located in an area designated under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act ( Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek ) as an area in which it was not permitted to take up new residence without a housing permit ( huisvestingsvergunning ). Accordingly, on 11 February 2008 the applicant lodged a request for a housing permit with the Burgomaster and Aldermen ( burgemeester en wethouders ) of Rotterdam in order to be permitted to continue residence in P. Street 20C.

6. On 17 March 2008 the Burgomaster and Aldermen gave a decision refusing such a permit. They found it established that the applicant had not been resident in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region for six years immediately preceding the introduction of her request. Moreover, since she was dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act ( Wet Werk en Bijstand ), she did not meet the income requirement that would have qualified her for an exemption from the residence requirement.

7. The applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the Burgomaster and Aldermen.

8. On 9 June 2008 the Burgomaster and Aldermen gave a decision dismissing the applicant ’ s objection.

9. The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with the Rotterdam Regional Court ( rechtbank ).

10. The Regional Court gave a decision dismissing the applicant ’ s appeal on 12 March 2009. The Regional Court ’ s decision referred to the leading decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ) given in the Garib case ( Garib v. the Netherlands , no. 43494/09, § 15 , 23 February 2016).

11. The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) of her own with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.

12. On 4 February 2009 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division gave a decision dismissing the applicant ’ s further appeal. As relevant to the case before the Court, its reasoning included the following:

“2.4. The Regional Court has rightly dismissed the argument that section 2.6 of the [2003 Housing Bye-law ( Huisvestingsverordening 2003 ) of the municipality of Rotterdam] lacks binding force because it is contrary to provisions of domestic and international law and was fully entitled to refer to this Division ’ s decision of 4 February 2009. The sole fact that that decision is the object of an application to the European Court of Human Rights does not prevent either the Burgomaster and Aldermen or the Regional Court from relying on that decision.

Moreover, the Burgomaster and Aldermen pursue a policy of only applying the hardship clause in intolerable situations ( onhoudbare situaties ). The Administrative Jurisdiction Division takes the view that the Regional Court rightly held, on the grounds stated, that the Burgomaster and Aldermen were entitled to take the position that such circumstances do not obtain. It is noted in this connection that also on higher appeal no grounds have been adduced that would lead the Administrative Jurisdiction Division to find that the Burgomaster and Aldermen were wrong not to apply the hardship clause. The argument fails.”

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

13. The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Garib v. the Netherlands , no. 43494/09, 23 February 2016.

COMPLAINT

14. The applicant complains that the restrictions to which she was subjected under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act ( Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek ) and the 2003 Housing Bye-law of the municipality of Rotterdam were incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.