CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 janvier 1992

.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 }  Application No. 17839/91 by H.A. and M.A. against Switzerland     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 January 1992, 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 SirBasil HALL MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ C.L. ROZAKIS Mrs.J. LIDDY MM.L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS 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 17 January 1991 by H.A. and M.A. against Switzerland and registered on 25 February 1991 under file No. 17839/91;   Having regard to the information provided by the respondent Government on 6 November 1991 as to an agreement reached between the Government and the applicants;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:     THE FACTS   The applicants are Lebanese nationals born in 1972 and 1973, respectively.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. T. Tschudi, a lawyer practising in Bern.   In 1990 the applicants travelled from Lebanon over Italy to Switzerland where on 16 July 1990 they applied for asylum.   In a decision of 20 July 1990 the Delegate for Refugees ordered the first applicant to reside at Interlaken in the Canton of Bern and the second applicant at Veltheim in the Canton of Aargau.   The decision stated that there were no interests worthy of protection in determining the applicants' residence in a particular canton.   A third brother who has also applied for asylum in Switzerland has been requested to reside in the Canton of Geneva.   On 26 March 1991 the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) declared inadmissible the applicants' administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) since the decision of the Delegate for Refugees was not subject to appeal.     COMPLAINTS   The applicants complained that the decision of the Federal Delegate for Refugees to allocate them to different cantons violated their right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.   They submitted that in view of their young age and their common background they should be enabled to reside together, and that their financial means only allowed them to visit each other every eight days.   Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complained that they had no effective remedy to contest the Delegate's decisions.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 17 January 1991 and registered on 25 February 1991.   On 2 September 1991 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.   On 6 November 1991 the Government informed the Commission of an agreement reached between the applicants and the Government.   The agreement provides, inter alia, that henceforth both applicants shall be able to reside at Veltheim in the Canton of Aargau, that they will receive compensation from the Government for costs and expenses and as just satisfaction, and that they withdraw their application to the Commission.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION   The Commission observes that the applicants are now permitted to reside together, that they have obtained compensation for costs and expenses and as just satisfaction, and that they wish to withdraw their application.   The Commission considers that the factual basis of the applicants' petition has now been resolved, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.   Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,     DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.       Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)