CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 juillet 2000

.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 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       521   11.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CILIZ v. THE NETHERLANDS     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Cılız v. the Netherlands. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 47,552.50 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for non-pecuniary damage and for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Mehmet Cılız, a Turkish national, was born in 1965 and lived in the Netherlands at the time the events of which he complains occurred.   The applicant had a residence permit for the Netherlands which enabled him to live there with his wife. A son was born to the applicant and his wife on 27 August 1990. In November 1991 the applicant and his wife separated. The Dutch authorities granted the applicant one year to seek employment but when, after that year, he had not found a job, the authorities rejected his request for an extension of his residence permit. The applicant challenged this decision but, in a judgment of 24 May 1995, the Hague Regional Court sitting in Amsterdam rejected his appeal. A new objection lodged by the applicant, against the refusal to extend his residence permit, was rejected on 6 November 1995. The applicant was expelled to Turkey on 8 November 1995, at a time when the child care authorities were still investigating whether or not he could have access to his son.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 November 1995. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 20 May 1998 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. It referred the case to the Court on 24 November 1998. The   Government of the Netherlands also brought the case before the Court on 15 January 1999. The applicant being a Turkish national, the Government of Turkey availed themselves of the right to take part in the proceedings before the Court, under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention.   A hearing was held on 30 November 1999.           Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that his right to respect for family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached.     Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court found that the Netherlands authorities, through their failure to co-ordinate the various proceedings touching on the applicant’s family rights, had not acted in a manner which enabled family ties between the applicant and his son to be developed after the divorce of the parents. It concluded that the decision-making process concerning both the question of the applicant’s expulsion and the question of the applicant’s access to his son had not afforded the requisite protection of the applicant’s interests as safeguarded by Article 8. The interference with the applicant’s right under this provision had, therefore, not been necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, there had been a breach of that provision.   Article 41   As regards non-pecuniary damage the Court awarded the applicant NLG 25,000. For costs and expenses, it awarded NLG 22,552.50 less the amount awarded for legal aid by the Council of Europe.   ***   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] Elected as the judge in respect of San Marino. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.