CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 juillet 1988

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                                  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 14014/88                       by Fadma EL BELHAJI                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 July 1988, 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                   G. BATLINER                   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 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 30 June 1988 by Fadma EL BELHAJI against the Netherlands and registered on 11 July 1988 under file No. 14014/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:     THE FACTS           The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a Moroccan citizen born in 1956 in Ijarmauas, Morocco.   She is unemployed and at present residing in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.   Before the Commission she is represented by M.D. van ALLER, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.           The applicant is the third of nine children.   Her father left Morocco in 1965 and was granted a residence permit in the Netherlands on 8 December 1978.   He continued to support his family financially.           On 1 September 1982 the applicant's mother and the five youngest children joined the father in the Netherlands.   The applicant was required to remain in Morocco to tend to her sick grandmother.   She was financially supported by her father.           In February 1985 the grandmother died.   Apparently, according to Moroccan law, the applicant was obliged to go and live with her father, because he is still her legal guardian.           On approximately 3 October 1985 the applicant arrived in the Netherlands.   On 11 February 1986 she applied for a residence permit for the purpose of living with her parents.   This was denied on the same day.   A request for a revision was denied by the Deputy Minister of Justice on 3 June 1986.           On 15 February 1988 the Council of State (Raad van State) rejected her appeal.   It considered that the applicant's ties with her family in the Netherlands had been broken, so that she did not meet the requirements under Dutch law for a residence permit.   Her appeal for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, in which she stated that, for both legal and religious reasons, she could not live alone in Morocco, was rejected.   The Council of State considered that, inter alia, in view of her age and the fact that she had always lived in Morocco, there was no reason to assume that she would not be able to establish a reasonable, independent existence for herself in Morocco.           The applicant has been informed that she will have to leave the Netherlands, but no expulsion decision has as yet been taken.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that she is not capable of living on her own in Morocco.   The applicant has never been to school and has never had a job.   She has always been dependent on her father. Furthermore, a woman living alone in Morocco is considered to be immoral, and in rural communities a woman is not allowed in the streets unaccompanied.   She contends that by expelling her the Netherlands will be condemning her to a miserable existence.   She invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in this regard.           Furthermore, the applicant complains that the Netherlands has erroneously found that she is no longer a part of her father's family.   She contends that her expulsion violates her right to a family life.   She invokes Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention in this regard.   THE LAW           The applicant has complained that by expelling her to Morocco the Netherlands will be condemning her to a miserable existence.   By forcing her to live as a single woman in Morocco, the Netherlands will be treating her inhumanly in violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.           The Commisison first recalls that according to its established case-law the right to asylum and the freedom from expulsion are not as such included among the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Convention but that the expulsion of a person may nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, raise an issue under the Convention and in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3) where there are serious grounds to fear that the person concerned would be subjected, in the State to which he is to be sent, to treatment which is in violation of this Article (see e.g.   No. 1802/62, Dec. 26.3.63, Yearbook 6 pp. 462, 480; No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.84, D.R. 36 pp. 209, 231;   No. 10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 pp. 262, 265).           In the present case, however, the applicant is an adult woman and her complaint is that she will have a difficult life on her own in Morocco.   She has not submitted that she can expect to receive any sort of physical harm in Morocco.           In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the envisaged expulsion to Morocco cannot raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.           It follows that the applicant's complaint in respect of the Netherlands regarding a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           Furthermore, the applicant has complained that her imminent expulsion interferes with her right to respect for her family life. She has invoked Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   This article provides as follows:           "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private         and family life, his home and his correspondence.           2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority         with the exercise of this right except such as is in         accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic         society in the interest of national security, public safety         or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention         of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,         or for   the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."           The Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee a right to enter or reside in a particular country.   However, the Commission has also held that, in view of the right to respect for family life ensured by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the expulsion of a person from a country in which his close relatives reside may raise an issue under this provision of the Convention (cf. e.g.   No. 7816/79, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219 and No. 845/78, Dec. 6.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 98).           In such cases, the Commission first examines whether such a degree of dependency exists between the applicant and her relatives as to give rise to the protection envisaged by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (cf.   Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81, Dec. 11.5.82, D.R. 29 p. 176).           The Commission notes that the applicant lived in Morocco with her mother and younger brothers and sisters until September 1982. Between 1982 and 1985 she tended to her grandmother at the behest of her family.   During this time she was supported by her father.   Since October 1985 she has again been living with her family, in the Netherlands.           In these circumstances the Commission is satisfied that there is family life between the applicant and her father, mother and younger brothers and sisters, within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.   Consequently, the applicant's intended expulsion can be considered as an interference with her right to respect for family life.           The question which remains to be examined is whether this interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.           The Commission notes that the decision to refuse the applicant a residence permit was taken on the basis of Dutch immigration policy which lays down special conditions for the granting of residence permits on the grounds of family reunification.           The Commission notes that the Dutch immigration policy establishes these special conditions for the purpose of regulating the labour market, and generally to restrict immigration into a densely populated country.   Thus, the legitimate aim pursued is the preservation of the country's economic well-being, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (see Eur.   Court H.R., Berrehab judgment of 21 June 1988, to be published in Series A no. 138, para. 26).           In the present case the applicant had lived in Morocco until she was 29 years old.   She had not lived with her father since 1965. She was capable of taking care of her sick grandmother between 1982 and 1985, although she was supported by her father.   She is at present 32 years old and has older brothers and/or sisters in Morocco.           A special feature of the present case is the applicant's assertion that, for religious and cultural reasons, she will have difficulty in living alone in Morocco.   Despite this humanitarian aspect of the case, the Commission considers that, in the circumstances and in view of the applicant's age, respect for her family life does not outweigh valid considerations relating to Dutch immigration policy.           The Commission considers, therefore, that the interference cannot be said to be disporportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and is justified as necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.           It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commisison           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary to the Commisison               President of the Commission                 (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)