CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mars 1994

.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. 19572/92                       by Ali KESKIN                       against the Netherlands         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 9 March 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the 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 16 February 1992 by Ali KESKIN against the Netherlands and registered on 2 March 1992 under file No. 19572/92;         Having regard to the reports 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 citizen born in Aksaray (Turkey) in 1958.   At the time of the introduction of the application, he was residing in The Hague, the Netherlands.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. M.J. Mons, a lawyer practising in The Hague.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant came to the Netherlands in 1982, where, on 1 February 1985, he married a Dutch national. On 22 March 1985 the applicant, who until that moment had been an illegal alien, obtained a residence permit in order to live with his Dutch spouse. On 12 March 1986 the applicant obtained a permanent residence permit.         On 18 December 1985, a son was born out of the marriage. However, in 1987, the applicant and his wife separated and divorced. The applicant's residence permit was subsequently withdrawn.         On 25 April 1988 the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague awarded the legal guardianship to the mother, while the applicant was appointed co-guardian (toeziend voogd). The Court determined that the applicant could see his son once every two weeks.         As his residence permit had been withdrawn as a consequence of his divorce, the applicant applied for a new residence permit on 11 April 1988. This request was refused by the Deputy Minister of Justice on 7 June 1989.         On 21 July 1989, the applicant filed a request for review (herziening) of this decision with the Deputy Minister of Justice. As this request was not decided upon within the statutory time-limit of three months, the applicant appealed to the Judicial Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State) against this presumed refusal (fictieve weigering) on 23 October 1989.         After having heard the applicant, the Advisory Committee on Aliens Affairs (Adviescommissie vreemdelingenzaken), which advises the Deputy Minister of Justice on requests for review, on 20 March 1990 advised to reject the applicant's request.         The Deputy Minister of Justice decided on 14 June 1990 that the applicant was allowed to stay in the Netherlands, pending the appeal proceedings before the Council of State.         After a hearing on 4 March 1991, the Judicial Division of the Council of State rejected the applicant's appeal on 22 August 1991. In respect of Article 8 of the Convention, the Judicial Division held that, at the time the applicant requested a residence permit, family life existed between him and his son. Nevertheless, the refusal to grant him a residence permit was justified under para. 2 of Article 8, as being necessary in the interest of the economic well-being of the country.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complained that the refusal of a residence permit and the ensuing expulsion to Turkey unjustly interfered with his right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.   2.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not receive a fair hearing before the Council of State as his argument that he had a job and his employer had declared that he could not be missed, was dismissed without valid reasons.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 16 February 1992 and registered on 2 March 1992.         On 11 January 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.         By letter of 24 February 1994 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application, as he has been granted a residence permit in the meantime. The Government have been informed accordingly.   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 his application since he has been granted a residence permit. The Commission 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)