CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 décembre 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 }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 17546/90                       by Dudu DALDAL-USLU                       against the Netherlands         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 December 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  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                  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 10 December 1990 by Dudu DALDAL-USLU against the Netherlands and registered on 10 December 1990 under file No. 17546/90;         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 applicant is a Turkish national, born in 1930 and currently residing in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.   Before the Commission, she is represented by Mrs. R. Niemer, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.         The facts, as submitted by the applicant, can be summarised as follows.         The applicant lived with her husband in the Netherlands from 1974 until August 1982, holding a Dutch residence permit.   In August 1982 she and her husband returned to Turkey as her husband was ill. After the death of her husband in January 1987, the applicant returned to the Netherlands on 7 December 1987.   She receives a monthly pension of 1.432,35 Dutch guilders net from a Dutch pension fund.         The applicant has four adult children.   Three sons reside in the Netherlands and one daughter lives with her husband and two children in Turkey.   The applicant lives with two of her sons in Amsterdam, upon whom she claims to be mentally and physically dependent in view of her alleged poor state of health.         On 27 January 1989, the applicant applied for a residence permit. This request was rejected on 11 April 1990 by the Head of the Municipal Police of Amsterdam, as the applicant did not meet the requirements for a residence permit either on the basis of family reunification or on humanitarian grounds.   Moreover, there was nothing to show that the applicant could not live in Turkey without the actual support of others.   On 23 April 1990, the applicant requested the Deputy Minister of Justice to reconsider the decision of 11 April 1990.         On 1 November 1990, the President of the Regional Court (Arrondisementsrechtbank) of The Hague, in summary proceedings, rejected the applicant's request for an injunction in respect of her expulsion from the Netherlands.   The President considered that the applicant, when she was in Turkey, did not form part of her sons' family.   The President added that, even assuming there is family life between the applicant and her sons, the interference complained of is justified as the interests of the Netherlands in maintaining a restrictive immigration policy outweighs the applicant's personal interests.         On 18 December 1990, the Deputy Minister of Justice rejected the applicant's request to reconsider the decision of 11 April 1990.         On 13 July 1992, the Judicial Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State) rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 18 December 1990.   The Judicial Division held that there was no interference with the applicant's family life. In respect of the applicant's health problems, the Judicial Division considered that the applicant needs some medical assistance, but that a possible medical treatment could also take place in Turkey.   COMPLAINT         The applicant claims that she belongs to the family of her two sons with whom she lives and upon whom she is dependent.   She complains that the refusal to grant her a residence permit in the Netherlands constitutes a violation of her right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and so would her expulsion to Turkey.     THE LAW         The applicant complains that the refusal by the Netherlands authorities to grant her a residence permit constitutes an unjustified interference with her right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, and so would her expulsion to Turkey. Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his [...]            family life [...]"         The Commission first recalls that, while it is clear that no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country, nor a right not to be expelled from a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention (cf. No. 9203/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 239), it has also repeatedly stated that, in view of the protection of the right to respect for family life afforded by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the expulsion of a person from a country in which his immediate family is resident may give rise to issues under this provision of the Convention (cf. No. 9478/81, Dec. 8.12.81, D.R. 27 p. 243).         The question of the existence or non-existence of family life is essentially a question of fact, depending upon the real existence in practice of close personal ties.   Relationships between adults do not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention without evidence of further elements of dependency, involving more than the normal emotional ties (cf. No. 10375/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 196).         In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant has substantial links with Turkey, where she has lived most of her life, where her daughter resides and where she returned in 1982 when her husband fell ill.   It was only five years later, after his death, that she returned to the Netherlands in order to reside with her two sons in Amsterdam.   The Commission further notes that the applicant receives a monthly pension of 1.432,35 Dutch guilders net from a Dutch pension fund.   The Commission does not find that the applicant's claim to be mentally and physically dependent on her sons has been sufficiently substantiated to attract the protection of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.         The Commission, therefore, concludes that the decision by the Netherlands authorities not to grant the applicant the right to take up residence in the Netherlands does not amount to lack of respect for the applicant's family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   It follows that the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission by a majority         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission        (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)