CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 juin 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E8E681F { width:220.65pt; display:inline-block } .s5F06A623 { width:236.32pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 31260/03 by Torben JØRGENSEN against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   June   2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2003, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND COMPLAINT The applicant, Torben Jørgensen, is a Danish national, born in 1940 and living in Nysted. He is represented before the Court by Mrs   Helle   Lokdam, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen. The applicant lived and worked in China for many years. In May 1997 he married a woman there of Philippine nationality. When in October   2002, having retired early, the applicant returned to Denmark, the authorities refused to grant his wife a residence permit. Consequently, on 29   August   2003 she had to leave Denmark. In his application the applicant complained that the authorities' refusal to grant his spouse a residence permit in Denmark violated his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, he invoked Articles   12 and 14 of the Convention. PROCEDURE On 1 February 2005 the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Denmark and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, the Court decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.   By letter of 17 March 2005 the applicant's representative submitted as follows: “The Ministry in Denmark has now granted a residence permit to my client's wife, therefore, on behalf on my client [the applicant], I withdraw the application lodged.” By letter of 18 March 2005 the Government submitted, inter alia , as follows: “The Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs informed the applicant on 11 March 2005 that after an assessment of all available information, including the new information regarding his health situation, the Ministry finds that exceptional reasons make it appropriate to grant family reunification in Denmark regardless of the general condition in the Aliens Act section 9 (3)-(6)... The Danish Immigration Service informed the applicant's wife on 16   March 2005 that the Immigration Service has decided to grant her a residence permit. The only obstacle to actually granting the residence permit is the short remaining validity period of her present passport. The applicant's wife has thus been informed that as soon as she gets her passport renewed she can be granted residence permit in Denmark ...” By letter of 23 March 2005 the Government submitted, inter alia , as follows: “...I have the honour to inform you that the Danish Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs on 22 March 2005 has granted a residence permit to the applicant's spouse...” THE LAW The Court takes note of the applicant's withdrawal of the application because the matter has been resolved in that his spouse has been granted a residence permit (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). The Court considers that there is no reason which would require the continuation of the examination of the application. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis    Registrar   President