CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 septembre 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. 13654/88                       by R.                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 7 January 1988 by R. against the Netherlands and registered on 9 March 1988 under file No. 13654/88;           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 presented by the applicants may be summarised as follows.           The applicants are sisters of Moroccan nationality, born in Morocco on 17 December 1964 and 27 April 1966 respectively.   Since 1987 they have been employed by office-cleaning firms in the Netherlands.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mr.   S. LAND, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.           On 1 February 1968 the applicants' parents divorced.   The mother was awarded custody of the two children.   They have no contact with the father.   After the divorce the mother and the applicants went to live with the applicants' maternal grandmother in Morocco.           In 1976 the mother went to the Netherlands and married for a second, and subsequently for a third, time.   On 17 July 1985 she was granted a permanent residence permit, independent of that of her husband.           The applicants remained with their grandmother in Morocco. The mother made visits almost every year, usually for at least two months.   She paid for their food and schooling, brought clothes for them from the Netherlands, and received a Dutch family allowance on the basis of her daughters' dependence.           The first applicant arrived in the Netherlands in September 1984 and the second in November 1985.   They were both nineteen years old when they arrived.   They requested a residence permit on grounds of family reunification on 14 November 1984 and 18 December 1985 respectively.   Both requests were refused on 8 April 1987.   Their requests for a review were denied on 11 August 1987.           Thereupon they appealed to the Council of State (Raad van State).   The Deputy Minister of Justice denied suspensive effect to these proceedings on 10 September 1987.   The applicants instituted summary proceedings with the President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam, requesting suspensive effect for the proceedings before the Council of State.   This was denied on 5 November 1987.   An appeal to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) is pending but has no suspensive effect.           The applicants are now apparently in hiding in the Netherlands to avoid expulsion to Morocco.   Their grandmother is seriously ill and no longer able to care for them.   Their other relatives in Morocco are poor and have many children of their own.   COMPLAINT           The applicants complain that they went to the Netherlands to rejoin their mother.   They maintain that their right to a family life will be violated by the Netherlands if they are expelled.   They state that in Morocco it is impossible for two young girls to live on their own, and that their relatives cannot take care of them, nor can their mother return to Morocco.           They invoke Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention and submit that the interference with their family life is not justified by paragraph 2 of Article 8.   THE LAW           The applicants have complained that by expelling them to Morocco, the Netherlands will be interfering with their family life. They have invoked Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   This article provides as follows:   "1.      Everyone has the right to respect for his private 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 exclusion 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. 8245/78, 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 his 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 applicants lived with their mother until 1976.   Their mother made frequent and long visits to them in Morocco and paid for their upbringing and schooling, for which she received a Dutch family allowance.   They have been living with their mother again since 1984 and 1985 respectively.           In these circumstances the Commission is satisfied that there is family life between the applicants and their mother, within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention. Consequently, the applicants' intended expulsion must be considered as an interference with their 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 applicants 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. 8-2) of the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Berrehab judgment of 21 June 1988, to be published in Series A no. 138, para. 26).           Regarding the necessity of the interference in a democratic society the Commission recalls that attention must be paid to the proportionality between the seriousness of the interference and the legitimate aim pursued (see above-mentioned Berrehab judgment, para. 29).           In the present case the applicants had lived in Morocco until they were nineteen years old.   They did not live with their mother for eight and nine years, respectively, and did not follow her when she left Morocco.   They are at present twenty-two and twenty-three years old and have relatives in Morocco.           A special feature of the present case is the applicants' assertion that they, for cultural reasons, will have difficulty in living alone in Morocco since their grandmother is seriously ill and can no longer take care of them.   Despite this humanitarian aspect of the case, the Commission considers that, in the circumstances and in view of the applicants' age, respect for the applicants' family life does not outweigh valid considerations relating to Dutch immigration policy.           The Commission considers, therefore, that the interference cannot be said to be disproportionate 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 Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE     Deputy Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission             (J. RAYMOND)                                 (C.A. NØRGAARD)