CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 décembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCE7A8313 { width:56.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8ABE8D9A { width:93.49pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     982   21.12.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING The Netherlands   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments of which only K.K.C. v. Netherlands is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Sen v. the Netherlands (application no. 31465/96)   Violation Article 8 The three applicants are all Turkish nationals. Zeki Sen arrived in the Netherlands in 1977 and married in Turkey in 1980. His wife Gülden Sen joined him in 1986, leaving their daughter Sinem, who had been born in Turkey in 1983, in her aunt’s custody. They had two other children, who were born in 1990 and 1994 respectively in the Netherlands and have always lived there with their parents. On 26 October 1992 Mr Sen applied for a residence permit for Sinem, which was rejected on 15 December 1992 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which considered, among other things, that Sinem no longer belonged to her parents’ family unit, but had become a member of her aunt’s family. An application for a review of that decision was rejected on 10 May 1993. Mr and Mrs Sen appealed to the Judicial Division of the Raad van State , which dismissed their appeal on 14 December 1995 on the ground that the family bond between them and their daughter had been broken.   The applicants complained of an infringement of their right to respect for their family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the rejection of their application for a residence permit for Sinem, a decision which prevented her from joining them in the Netherlands.   Being required to determine whether the Dutch authorities had a positive obligation to authorise Sinem to live with her parents in the Netherlands, having regard, among other things, to her young age when the application was made, the Court noted that she had spent her whole life in Turkey and had strong links with the linguistic and cultural environment of her country in which she still had relatives. However, there was a major obstacle to the rest of the family’s return to Turkey. The first two applicants had settled as a couple in the Netherlands, where they had been legally resident for many years, and two of their three children had always lived in the Netherlands and went to school there. Concluding that the Netherlands had failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants’ interest and their own interest in controlling immigration, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights. It also noted that the applicants had not submitted a claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is only available in French.)   (2)     K.K.C. v. the Netherlands (no. 58964/00))   Friendly settlement K.K.C., a Russian national of Chechen origin, is currently living in the Netherlands, from where he risked being deported to the Russian Federation. K.K.C., formerly a member of the Chechen Army, claimed that, in October 1994, during an offensive against Chechen opposition forces near Dalinsk, he was ordered to open fire. He alleged that he refused to carry out the order, not wanting to fire on his own people, and that he was then arrested on charges of treason. He escaped in November 1994 and remained in hiding in Chechnya until 1997, when he fled to the Netherlands.   On 15 February 1997 he applied unsuccessfully to the Netherlands Secretary of State for Justice for asylum or, alternatively, for a residence permit. His appeal was rejected. His second application for asylum and subsequent appeal were also rejected. In his appeal, he relied on a policy decision according to which Chechens not holding a residence permit for an area in the Russian Federation other than Chechnya would not be expelled until the situation of displaced Chechens in the Russian Federation had improved. This policy decision was deemed not applicable in the applicant’s case, on the ground that he had a criminal record in the Netherlands - he had been convicted and sentenced five times for theft.   The applicant complained that, if expelled to the Russian Federation, he would risk being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. He submitted that he would be prosecuted and persecuted by the Chechen authorities for desertion from the Chechen Army and prosecuted by the Russian authorities, because he is an ethnic Chechen and has served in the Chechen Army.   The European Court of Human Rights applied Article 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court, calling on the Netherlands authorities not to deport the applicant while his case was before the Court.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Netherlands Government has agreed to give the applicant a Netherlands residence permit without restrictions and 1,400 Euro for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.