CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 septembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF43307A6 { width:17.2pt; display:inline-block } .s167850C2 { width:175.4pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 44549/06 by Said SOURI against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mr   E. Myjer ,   Mrs   I. Ziemele ,   Mrs   I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2006, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Said Souri, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1967 and lives in The Hague. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A.A. Vermeij, a lawyer practising in the Haag. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms J. Schukking, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. After marrying his wife, a Dutch and Moroccan national, the applicant entered the Netherlands in January 2001 where he was issued with a residence permit for the purpose of residing with his spouse. A daughter was born to the applicant and his wife in October 2002. The couple split up on 4   October 2003, and divorce was pronounced in August 2004. According to an access arrangement established by the court at the time of the divorce, the applicant could see his daughter for two hours every Sunday, in the home of his former parents-in-law. At a later stage, access was increased to four hours a week. The applicant also pays maintenance. As the applicant was no longer residing with his spouse, the Minister for Immigration and Integration ( Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie ), by decision of 22 November 2004, withdrew the applicant’s original residence permit as of 4 October 2003, this being the date on which the spouses had ceased co-habiting. Moreover, the Minister considered that the applicant was not eligible for continued residence ( voortgezet verblijf ) as he had not been lawfully residing in the Netherlands for at least three years when he and his wife had split up. Subsequently, the Minister dismissed the applicant’s objection against this decision. Although his appeal to the Regional Court of The Hague was upheld, that court’s decision was overturned in a final decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) of 9 May 2006. On 6 August 2007 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted a temporary residence permit for the purposes of exercising family life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, with his daughter. In view of this development, the applicant indicated that he was prepared to withdraw his application. COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal to allow him to continue living in the Netherlands constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life. THE LAW The applicant complained that the refusal of a residence permit contravened Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to respect for family life. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been granted a residence permit for the purpose of exercising family life with his daughter and that, for this reason, he does not intend to pursue his application. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion 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, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Santiago Quesada   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Registrar   President