DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VAJIĆ

( Translation )

I regret that I am unable to join the majority in finding that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the instant case. In that connection, I would refer to the arguments expressed by Judge Briede and myself in our joint dissenting opinion in Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (no. 60654/00, judgment of 16 June 2005).

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and in particular the Government ’ s offer to regularise the applicant ’ s stay and the authorities ’ statement to the effect that enforcement of the deportati on order is no longer possible (paragraph 30 of the judgment), I have come to the conclusion that the matter giving rise to the present case has been resolved. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the application should have been struck out of the Court ’ s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BRIEDE

( Translation )

In the instant case I can only refer to my dissenting opinion in the case of Shevanova v. Latvia (no. 58822/00, judgment of 15 June 2006). As in that case, I consider that, in view of the measures proposed to the applicant to regularise her stay, she can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. In my opinion, t he matter has been resolved and the application should be struck out of the Court ’ s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

[1] See also the arguments set out in F. Sudre et al , Les grands arr êts de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme , 3rd edition, Paris, PUF, Coll. Thémis Droit, 2003, p. 474.

[2] See also F. Sudre, Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme , 7th edition, Paris, PUF, Coll. Droit fondamental, 2005, p. 429.