Search
document

Document text Analytics

NSONA v. THE NETHERLANDSDISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. G.H. THUNE AND Mr. I. BÉKÉS

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: March 2, 1995

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

NSONA v. THE NETHERLANDSDISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. G.H. THUNE AND Mr. I. BÉKÉS

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: March 2, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. G.H. THUNE AND Mr. I. BÉKÉS

Unfortunately we are unable to agree with the majority as regards

Article 8 of the Convention as we consider that there has been lack of

respect for the private and family life of the first applicant.

We do recognise the right of each state to regulate and limit

immigration as well as the difficulties national authorities can be

faced with when children arrive at the border, unaccompanied or

accompanied by adults without parental responsibility.

However, it also follows from Commission's and Court's case-law

that even if the person concerned would not face any serious risk of

torture or ill-treatment upon arrival in the country to which he or she

is being expelled, the expulsion may entail serious problems which may

raise an issue under the Convention and thereby create an obstacle to

the expulsion as such or require particular protective measures.

For example we would mention persons with serious health problems

as well as persons dependant on help from other people due to their

young age or particular physical or psychological needs.

We recall that the present case concerns a young girl, 9 years'

old, whose parents had died. She was left with strangers upon arrival

in the Netherlands and refused a temporary residence permit pending the

outcome of the summary proceedings in which the merits of her case were

to be considered.

As established by the majority of the Commission, the Dutch

authorities had failed to investigate Francine's personal situation in

Zaïre as well as to take adequate measures in respect of her arrival

there (para. 53 of the Commission's report).

Having regard to these particular circumstances, we find that the

Dutch authorities have not shown sufficient respect for the private and

family life of the applicant and thus acted contrary to Article 8 of

the Convention.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

25.01.94 Introduction of application

31.01.94 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

31.01.94 President's decision to communicate the

case to the respondent Government and to

invite the parties to submit observations

on admissibility and merits

23.03.94 Government's observations

30.04.94 Applicant's observations in reply

06.07.94 Commission's decision to declare

application in part admissible and in part

inadmissible

Examination of the merits

07.07.94 Decision on admissibility transmitted to

parties. Invitation to parties to answer

questions put by Commission and to submit

further observations on the merits

26.09.94 Government's answers to questions put by

Commission and further observations

03.12.94 Commission's consideration of state of

proceedings

09.12.94 Commission's grant of legal aid

21.02.95 Commission's deliberations on the merits,

final vote and consideration of text of

the Report

02.03.95 Adoption of Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant