CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   934 20.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT EL MAJJAOUI & STICHTING TOUBA MOSKEE v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of El Majjaoui & Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (application no. 25525/03).   The Court decided, by 14 votes to three, to strike out the application because the case had been resolved, in that Lamaiz El Majjaoui now had a work permit and temporary residence permit allowing him to work as the imam for a mosque in Flushing, the Netherlands.   Under Rule 43 § 4 (striking out) of the Rules of Court, the Court unanimously awarded the applicants 5   000   euros   (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants were Mr El Majjaoui, a Moroccan national, born in 1965 who lived in Flushing at the relevant time; and Stichting Touba Moskee a foundation based in Flushing, which runs a Mosque serving Muslim believers belonging to the local Moroccan community.   The case concerned the difficulties faced by Stichting Touba Moskee in trying to appoint Mr El Majjaoui as its imam.   On 2 December 1999 Stichting Touba Moskee applied for a work permit (tewerkstellingsvergunning) to allow it to appoint Mr El Majjaoui as its imam.   On 30 October 2000 the General Directors of the Employment Services Authority turned down the application on the ground that it had to be assumed that there was already an adequate supply of priority candidates (nationals of member States of the European Union or European Economic Area, or others with equivalent status as regards residence and the right to work, with the right qualifications) since insufficient efforts had been made to fill the position from that priority group, for example, by advertising the position in the local and national press. In addition, it had not been shown that Mr El Majjaoui would earn the statutory minimum wage.   Mr El Majjaoui lodged an objection on 29 November 2000, stating, among other things, that rules about the minimum wage did not apply to him and that there was a dearth of imams in the Netherlands. His objection was rejected on 19 September 2001.   He and Stichting Touba Moskee then appealed to the Regional Court of The Hague on 16 October 2001. They claimed that, among other things, efforts to find a suitable imam through the Labour Exchange (Arbeidsbureau) had failed and, given the unreasonable length of time taken up by the pending proceedings (by that time, nearly two years) and in the absence of any other candidate for the position, Mr El Majjaoui had started work as the imam at the mosque and everyone was satisfied with his performance. It was also argued that the decision of 19 September 2001 violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants’ case and subsequent appeal were rejected.   Following the issuing of an expulsion order, the applicant returned to Morocco on 4 August 2005.   On 27 January 2006 the applicant foundation lodged a successful application for a work permit on behalf of the applicant. A work permit was issued on 3 March 2006, valid until 6 March 2009, on the ground that the applicant foundation had established that the conditions of sections 8 and 9 of the Foreign Nationals (Employment) Act had been fulfilled: the applicant foundation had showed evidence of having made sufficient efforts to fill the position with priority labour and of having reported the availability of the position to the Employment Services Organisation at least five weeks before the new application for the work permit was lodged, and had submitted an employment contract showing that the applicant’s wages met the minimum wage requirement. On 16 November 2006 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit, also valid until 6 March 2009.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 August 2003 and declared admissible on 14 February 2006.   On 7 December 2006 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [2] of the Convention   A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 13 June 2007.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicants complained about the refusal to give Mr El Majjaoui a work permit in order for him to work as imam for the application foundation, relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 9 and 18   The Court noted that it was not in doubt that there was no longer any question of the applicant being prevented from working as imam of the mosque operated by the applicant foundation or of the foundation not being allowed to employ him in that capacity.   Concerning whether the measures taken by the authorities constituted sufficient redress for the applicants’ complaint, the Court considered that the mere fact that the applicant foundation had to comply with certain requirements before it was able to employ the applicant did not as such raise an issue under Article 9. That article did not guarantee foreign nationals a right to obtain a residence permit for the purposes of taking up employment in one of the States which had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, even if the employer was a religious association.   Since a work permit had been granted and the applicant was now lawfully employed by the applicant foundation, the Court considered, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case, that the applicants’ complaints had been adequately and sufficiently remedied. Finding that the matter giving rise to their complaints could therefore be considered to have been “resolved”, the Court decided to strike out the application from its list of cases.     Judges Zupančič, Zagrebelsky and Myjer expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.