CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 26 février 1996

.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. 28103/95                       by Patricia OKERE and Stephan I. EDIAE                       against the Netherlands        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 26 February 1996, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL              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 3 July 1995 by Patricia OKERE and Stephan I. EDIAE against the Netherlands and registered on 3 August 1995 under file No. 28103/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   FACTS        The applicants are Nigerian citizens, born in 1967 and 1964 respectively, and residing in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands. Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. L.B.J. Movig, a lawyer practising in Den Helder, the Netherlands.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:        On 29 June 1990 the second applicant arrived in the Netherlands where he requested asylum. He was granted refugee status on 15 March 1993.        The first applicant arrived in the Netherlands on 28 September 1991. Her request for asylum and a subsequent request for a residence permit to remain as partner of a Mr. W. were both rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie).        In January 1993 the first applicant moved in with the second applicant and they intended to marry in August 1993 when the first applicant would also apply for a residence permit to remain as spouse of the second applicant. However, as the first applicant's immigration file was lost, both the wedding and the application for a residence permit were postponed.        On 17 September 1993 new regulations came into force imposing certain income requirements on the spouse of a person applying for a residence permit. Before this date, people recognised as refugees did not have to comply with any income requirement if they wished their spouse to settle with them. The applicants married on 29 October 1993 and the new regulations were therefore applicable to the first applicant's subsequent request for a residence permit made on 15 December 1993. The regulations require guaranteed employment for twelve future months, or a history of regular employment during the past three years. The second applicant has regular work through an employment agency, but he may be laid off during slack periods.        On 25 August 1994 the Deputy Minister of Justice refused to grant the first applicant a residence permit, considering that the second applicant was at that time in receipt of unemployment benefits and did therefore not comply with the regulations. The first applicant filed an objection (bezwaarschrift) against this decision with the Deputy Minister on 29 August 1994. She further requested the President of The Hague Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) to grant an interim measure (voorlopige voorziening) in order for her not to be expelled pending the objection.        Following a hearing on 10 November 1994, the President rejected the request for an interim measure. As he was of the opinion that the objection filed by the first applicant stood no chance of success he also rejected the objection. On 10 December 1994 the first applicant requested the Regional Court to review (herzien) the decision of its President and a hearing took place on 15 February 1995. The Regional Court rejected the request for a review on 1 March 1995.        On 7 April 1995 the first applicant was ordered to leave the Netherlands before 16 April 1995 but she did not do so. The first applicant gave birth to a daughter on 15 June 1995.        On 2 November 1995 the applicants' representative informed the Commission that the first applicant had been granted a residence permit. The applicants wish to maintain the application.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the expulsion of the first applicant would violate their, and their daughter's, right to respect for their family life. They further argue that no strict income requirements may be imposed on recognised refugees who wish their spouse to live with them or that, in any case, seasonal work through an employment agency may be considered as complying with those requirements. In this respect they invoke Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 3 July 1995 and registered on 3 August 1995.        On 7 July 1995 the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The applicants complain that the expulsion of the first applicant as a result of the application of certain income requirements would be contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.        The Commission notes that the first applicant has been granted a residence permit and that, consequently, she will not be expelled.        In this situation the Commission finds that the matter which has been the subject of the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. The Commission, furthermore, having regard to Article 30 para. 1 in fine, finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.        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)                          (S. TRECHSEL)