CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 2004

.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 } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED9CCD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6E9AB15 { width:216.66pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 3107/02 by Majid and Fouad AOULAD SI AHMED against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   December   2004 as a Chamber composed of: Mr    B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr    J. Hedigan ,   Mr    L. Caflisch ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr    V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mr    E. Myjer ,   Mr    David Thór Björgvinsson, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are a father and his son. The first applicant, Majid Aoulad Si Ahmed, is a Moroccan and Netherlands national, who was born in 1953 and lives in The Hague. His son Fouad Aoulad Si Ahmed, the second applicant (hereinafter referred to as “Fouad”), is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1986. They are represented before the Court by Mrs   M.   Samama, a lawyer practising in The Hague. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Schukking, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1982 the first applicant emigrated from Morocco to the Netherlands. In October 1993 the first applicant's wife and four of their five, at that time minor, children joined the first applicant in the Netherlands. Fouad stayed in Morocco in the care of his grandparents. The first applicant obtained Netherlands nationality in 1994, retaining his Moroccan nationality. In 1998 it was no longer possible for Fouad's grandparents to live independently and to provide for his care. On 13 August 1998 the first applicant took Fouad with him to the Netherlands where, on 24   August   1998, he applied for a residence permit on behalf of Fouad for the purposes of family reunion. After an initial refusal, Fouad was granted a residence permit for this purpose on 27 July 2004. COMPLAINT The applicants originally complained that the Netherlands authorities' refusal to grant Fouad a residence permit was contrary to their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court notes that on 27 July 2004 the second applicant has been granted a residence permit for the purposes of family reunion. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that the matter has been resolved and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of 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. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Vincent Berger   Boštjan M. Zupančıč   Registrar   President