CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 avril 1991

.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. 13916/88                       by Istvan LAKNER, Agatha Helena MIN                       and their children                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 April 1991, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, 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 23 May 1988 by Istvan LAKNER, Agatha Helena MIN and their children against the Netherlands and registered on 7 June 1988 under file No. 13916/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.           The first applicant, born in Hungary in 1952, resides at Amsterdam in the Netherlands.   The second applicant, a Dutch citizen born in 1957, resides at Amsterdam.   The applicants married in 1984 and then lived at Amsterdam.   Their children, both Dutch citizens, were born in 1984 and 1987.   In 1990 the applicants' marriage was dissolved.           In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mrs.   J.J. Bolten, a former lawyer practising in Amsterdam.           The first applicant, of whom it was not clear whether he was a Hungarian national or a stateless person, was granted political asylum in Sweden after he fled Hungary in 1976.   A conviction for possession of drugs led to his expulsion from Sweden.   In 1979 he went to the Netherlands where he was denied asylum.   Subsequently he was sentenced to imprisonment for possession of drugs.   After his conditional release he was expelled several times to Sweden and Belgium.   In this context he unsuccessfully instituted various proceedings to avoid expulsion. In February 1989 he was granted a temporary residence permit.   On 4 May 1990 he received Dutch nationality.     COMPLAINTS           The applicants complain that their right to respect for their family life has been violated for several years, as the Dutch authorities wanted to expel the first applicant and there existed a constant threat that he would have to return to Hungary.   Moreover, the rest of the family had been expected to follow him.   However, as the Hungarian authorities had deprived the first applicant of his nationality, neither he nor the second applicant and their children would at that time have been accepted in Hungary.   Furthermore, no other country would have accepted him.   The applicants submit that these facts constituted at that time a violation of Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention even if the first applicant has in the meantime been granted Dutch nationality.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 23 May 1988 and registered on 7 June 1988.           On 30 September 1988 the applicants requested the Commission to indicate an interim measure under Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure in view of the first applicant's imminent expulsion.   On 14 October 1988 the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36.         Also on 14 October 1988 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application with regard to the issue under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the right to respect for family life.           The Government's observations were received by letter dated 2 March 1989 and the applicants' observations by letter dated 17 April 1989.   Further information was submitted by the applicants by letter dated 31 May 1990.     THE LAW           The applicants complain of the first applicant's imminent expulsion to Hungary to where his family would have had to follow him. They contend that at that time this threat constituted a breach of the right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.           The Commission recalls that there is no right to enter, remain or reside in a particular country guaranteed as such by the Convention.   However, if a person is excluded from a country where his close family resides, an issue may arise under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (see No. 10375/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 196).           The respondent Government submit that, since the first applicant has been granted an unrestricted residence permit, the applicants have no concrete interest in the continuation of the proceedings.           The Commission observes that the first applicant has been granted a residence permit and subsequently Dutch nationality. There is therefore no longer a danger of expulsion.   As a result, the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.           It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)