CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 juin 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s92E5BBE9 { width:230.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 61636/00 by Gary Hamilton RICKETTS against the Netherlands   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18   June 2002 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni , judges , and   Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2000 and registered on 10   October 2000, Having regard to the letters submitted by the respondent Government on 20 December 2001 and by the applicant on 14 March 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Gary Hamilton Ricketts, is a Jamaican national, born in 1963 and living in Amsterdam. He was represented before the Court by Ms   C.   Peeck, a lawyer practising at Advocatenkantoor de Binnenstad in Amsterdam. The respondent Government were represented by Mr   R.   Böcker, Agent. The facts of the case, as originally submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 27 October 1992 the applicant married a Dutch national in Jamaica. He came to the Netherlands on 30 October 1992 and was granted a residence permit on 4 November 1992. On 26 August 1994 a son, Levi, was born to the applicant and his wife. The applicant and his wife separated in November/December 1995. As the applicant’s right to reside in the Netherlands had been dependent on his being married and cohabiting with his spouse, he lost this right ex jure from the moment of separation. On 24 January 1996 the applicant was granted an independent residence permit in order to (find) work in the Netherlands. This permit was valid for one year. The applicant requested a prolongation of his residence permit from the head of the Amsterdam-Amstelland police on 16 January 1997. At this time the applicant was in receipt of social security benefits and for this reason his request was rejected on 5   February   1997. The applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision with the State Secretary of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ). In November 1998 the applicant filed for divorce. The divorce was pronounced by the Regional Court ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of Amsterdam on 14 July 1999. The Regional Court adjourned a final decision on the question of the applicant’s access to his son, but laid down a provisional arrangement with a gradually increasing frequency of access for the applicant to Levi. The Regional Court further held that as the applicant was in receipt of social security benefits he was unable to make a financial contribution to Levi’s upbringing. On 26 January 2000 the Regional Court issued a definite access arrangement to the effect that Levi would spend every other weekend (i.e.   from noon on Saturday to 5 p.m. on Sunday) with his father. The proceedings relating to the applicant’s request for continued residence came to an end on 7   February 2000 when the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Amsterdam rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against a decision of the State Secretary of Justice of 29 April 1999. The Regional Court noted that at the time of the State Secretary’s decision the applicant spent one day every two weeks with his son. However, regardless of the question whether such contact could be considered as sufficiently close, the applicant did not contribute financially to the upbringing of his son and he was in receipt of social security benefits. The Regional Court was not persuaded by the applicant’s argument that the lack of a residence permit prevented him from finding employment given that the applicant had been given one year following his separation to find work and it did not appear that he had made any attempts to do so. The Regional Court finally considered that the applicant should be able to maintain contacts with his son in some form from Jamaica. COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained that the refusal by the Dutch authorities to grant him continued residence constitutes a violation of his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. THE LAW The applicant originally complained of an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life. In their letter of 20 December 2001, the Government informed the Court that the applicant was entitled to a residence permit, provided he lodged a fresh request and specifically referred to the policy memorandum on spouses’ residence rights. On 14 March 2002 the applicant informed the Court that he had been granted a residence permit for five years and that, consequently, he did not wish to pursue the application. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. C osta   Registrar   President