CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2D8BB0A7 { height:12.55pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)108 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Tuquabo-Tekle and others against the Netherlands   (Application No. 60665/00, judgment of 1 December 2005, final on 1 March 2006)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the Netherlands authorities’ refusal to allow Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle’s daughter by a previous marriage and living in Eritrea, to join her mother and step-family in the Netherlands and thus develop a family life (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)108   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Tuquabo-Tekle and others against the Netherlands     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the Netherlands authorities’ refusal to allow Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle’s daughter by a previous marriage and living in Eritrea, to join her mother and step-family in the Netherlands and thus develop a family life (violation of Article 8).   The European Court found that the respondent state had failed in its obligation to strike a fair balance between the applicants’ interests (family reunion) and its own interest (controlling immigration). It drew attention to the similarity of the case to that of Şen (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)51, adopted on 2/04/2009). The Court further found that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the fact that the child concerned was older than that in the Şen case was not an element which should lead to assessing the case differently.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 8   000 EUR   540,23 EUR 8   540,23 EUR Paid on 23/12/2005   b) Individual measures   On 4/02/2010 the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Khartoum (Sudan) issued the daughter of Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle, who had presented herself there, a laissez-passer and an entry visa for the Netherlands. On 11/02/2010 she arrived in the Netherlands. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers. Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle was issued a residence permit on 23 April 2010.     II.   General measures   Following the European Court’s judgment, on 25/09/2006, the Ministry of Justice adopted a new policy in cases concerning the right to family reunion of minors with a parent legally residing in the Netherlands (TK 2006-2007, 18 637, nr. 1089). According to the authorities, the criterion of “factual family ties” used to determine whether a right to family reunion exists, is now interpreted in conformity with the European Court’s interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention. Thus, it is now assumed that a child has factual family ties with the parent concerned if family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention exists. The judgment was published in the European Human Rights Cases 2006, p. 648, No.11, Nederlands Juristenblad (2006, 648) and Jurisprudentie Vreemdelingenrecht (2006, 34).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Netherlands have thus complied with their obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies