CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 25 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8D1B5452 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#0000ff } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } 516 25.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision   Kemevuako v. The Netherlands (application no. 65938/09)   Unanimously: application inadmissible     APPLICATION CONCERNING AN ASYLUM SEEKER IN THE NETHERLANDS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT TOO LATE     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Eduardo Lutete Kemevuako, is an Angolan national who lives in Soesterberg. He entered the Netherlands on 6   July   2001 and requested asylum which was rejected sixteen days later by the Deputy Minister of Justice who found the applicant’s account not credible. Mr Kemevuako appealed unsuccessfully.   In August 2008, the applicant applied for a residence permit indicating that during his seven years’ stay in the Netherlands he had integrated into Dutch society and had developed personal, social and economic ties with the country. His application was rejected in March 2008 for the reason that he did not hold a provisional residence visa which he could only obtain in his country of origin. Mr Kemevuako challenged that refusal, to no avail. The domestic court found no reasons to justify granting him an exemption from the requirement to hold a visa; the final judgment to that effect was sent to Mr Kemevuako on 15 July 2009.   The applicant’s legal representative sent a fax on 14 December 2009 manifesting his wish to lodge a complaint before the Court; the hard copy of that fax was received at the Court on 6   January 2010. On the next day, 7 January 2010, the Court’s Registry sent him a letter, together with an application package containing explanatory documents, informing him of the applicable rules. In particular, the Court stressed that the completed application form had to be sent to it no later than 4 March 2010. Failure to do so would result in the Court considering the date on which the completed application was sent as the date of introduction of the application (and not the initial letter sent to it). In the accompanying Notes for Guidance it was mentioned that applications to the Court could only be made by post and that applications submitted by telephone or fax had to be confirmed by post.   On 4 March 2010 the applicant’s representative sent a fax to the Registry, consisting of a cover letter, a completed application form, and an authority form signed by both the applicant and the representative. The hard copy of the cover letter dated 4 March 2010, the original of the completed application form and of the authority form, as well as copies of all relevant documents were received by the Registry by post on 12   March 2010. The envelope containing all these documents was postmarked 10 March 2010.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to private life), the applicant complained of the refusal by the Dutch authorities to grant him a residence permit.   The decision on admissibility was taken, after deliberation on 1 June 2010, by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges , and Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that before examining the applicant’s complaint on the merits, it had to consider whether it had been brought before it within six months from the date on which the final decision had been taken by the domestic courts. That was one of the requirements under the Convention for applications to be admissible for examination by the Court. In Mr   Kemevuako’s case, the date on which the final domestic judgment had been sent to him had been 15 July 2009.   The Court then recalled that the purpose of the six-month admissibility rule was to promote legal certainty, to ensure that cases raising Convention issues were dealt with within a reasonable time and to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. The Court normally considered the date of the introduction of an application to be the date when the applicants or their representatives had first communicated to the Court an intention to lodge an application and some indication of the nature of the application. Such first communication, which might take the form of a letter sent by fax, interrupted the running of the six-month period.   However, it would be contrary to the spirit and aim of the six-month rule if an application could set into motion the proceedings under the Convention and then remain inactive for an unexplained and unlimited length of time. In the present case, the Court referred in particular to the Practice Directions for the institution of proceedings before it, which gave eight weeks to applicants to submit completed applications forms.   The Court then emphasised the need for it to receive the originals of the application and authority forms, if the applicant was represented in the Strasbourg proceedings. Transmission by fax of those documents, without the originals, was insufficient to constitute a complete or valid application. Therefore, it had been irrelevant that Mr Kemevuako’s legal representative had sent the application by fax within the deadline given by the Court (on the last day, 4 March 2010), as the envelope containing the original completed application form, the signed authority form and copies of all relevant documents, had been postmarked six days after that deadline.   In conclusion the Court   found that the application had been submitted out of time.   ****   The decision is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The decision is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Emma Hellyer (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.