CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mai 1993

.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. 17624/91                       by E.K.                       against the Netherlands           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on   13 May 1993, the following members being present:                    MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                       A. WEITZEL                       J.-C. SOYER                       H.G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                  Mrs. G.H. THUNE                  MM.   F. MARTINEZ                       J.-C. GEUS                       M.A. NOWICKI                       I. CABRAL BARRETO                    Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 30 December 1990 by E.K. against the Netherlands and registered on 8 January 1991 under file No. 17624/91;         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 1951 and currently residing at Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Before the Commission she is represented by Mrs. T.L. Tan, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant entered the Netherlands for the first time on 28 September 1974 in order to join her husband, whom she had married in 1966. On 18 October 1974 she obtained a residence permit for family reunification, which was last prolonged until 3 August 1976.         On 27 June 1975 she gave birth to her daughter Bahtiyar. In August 1976 the family returned to Turkey for a holiday. After some weeks the applicant's husband took her passport and residence permit and returned alone to the Netherlands. Also in August 1976 the applicant's name was removed from the Netherlands aliens administration register on the ground that she had returned to Turkey.         On 6 October 1976 the applicant gave birth to a second daughter, Bahtisen. Her husband visited her in Turkey in July 1977 and, promising that the family would soon be reunited, took Bahtiyar back with him to the Netherlands.         In 1977 the applicant's husband filed an action for divorce in Turkey, which was rejected by the Court of Nevsehir on 15 July 1980.         With the help of two brothers who reside in the Netherlands, the applicant managed to obtain a new passport and in December 1981 returned to the Netherlands, where she took up residence and gradually re-established the contacts with Bahtiyar.         After an earlier rejection by the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Zutphen of a divorce action filed by the applicant's husband, he started new divorce proceedings against the applicant on 31 December 1987 before the Regional Court of Amsterdam, which are still pending.         In the course of 1988 Bahtiyar left her father and moved in with her mother. By judicial order of 12 January 1989 the Juvenile Court judge (Kinderrechter) of Zutphen placed Bahtiyar under supervision (ondertoezichtstelling). In the course of the divorce proceedings the applicant, by an interim measure of 30 January 1989, was provisionally entrusted with the care of Bahtiyar. In May 1989, following the death of the applicant's mother in Turkey, Bahtisen also moved to the Netherlands in order to rejoin her mother and sister.         Since her return to the Netherlands in 1981 the applicant has tried to obtain a residence permit on several occasions, which has resulted in two, for the applicant unfavourable, final decisions of 25 June 1987 by the Judicial Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State).           On 22 February 1989 the applicant filed a new request for a residence permit for family reunification with her daughter Bahtiyar, who has in the meantime obtained the Dutch nationality. Her request was rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) on 2 August 1989. Her subsequent request to the Deputy Minister to reconsider the decision of 2 August 1989 was rejected on 21 February 1990.         On 23 May 1990 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Judicial Division of the Council of State. In May 1990 the Juvenile Court judge ordered that Bahtiyar provisionally be placed outside her family. At present Bahtiyar lives in a home for girls.         By judgment of 25 October 1990 the President of the Regional Court of The Hague, in summary proceedings, rejected the applicant's request for a suspension of her expulsion pending the proceedings before the Judicial Division.         The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the Dutch authorities' refusal to grant her a residence permit and her expulsion to Turkey unjustly interfered with her right to respect for her family life with her daughter Bahtiyar.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 30 December 1990 and registered on 8 January 1991.         On 14 January 1991 the Commission rejected the applicant's request for a ruling under Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.         On 31 March 1993 the Commission decided to adjourn its examination of the application and to request the applicant to submit further information on the state of the domestic proceedings.         By letter of 13 April 1993 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant wishes to withdraw her application, as she has received permission to stay in the Netherlands.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application since she has been granted permission to stay in the Netherlands. It finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the application to be continued, in accordance with 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 Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)