Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)107[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Sezen against the Netherlands
(Application No. 50252/99, judgment of 31 January 2006, final on 1 July 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 once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life due to the refusal by the respondent state to extend the first applicant’s residence permit (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order 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;
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)107
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Sezen against the Netherlands
Introductory case summary
The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to family life due to the refusal by the respondent state to extend the residence permit of the first applicant, the husband of the second applicant (violation of Article 8).
The first applicant came to the Netherlands in 1989, where he married the second applicant who had been in the Netherlands since the age of seven and held a permanent residence permit (both are Turkish citizens). In 1990 their first child was born. In 1991, the first applicant received a residence permit for the purposes of forming a family unit and working. In 1992, he ex jure acquired the right to remain in the Netherlands indefinitely (under the then applicable Aliens Act 1965), a right which would expire when he no longer actually formed part of the family unit. In 1993 the first applicant was convicted of a drug offence and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, of which he served approximately two years.
Due to marital problems, the applicants did not live together for some time in 1995 and 1996 and were registered at different addresses. In June 1996 the applicants officially resumed cohabitation and their second child, conceived during the period of separation of residence, was born in October 1996. In May 1996 the applicants applied for an extension of the first applicant’s residence permit. On 5/06/1997 the Minister of Justice refused this request and imposed a ten-year exclusion order against the first applicant. He considered that the first applicant had lost his indefinite right to remain in the Netherlands when he ceased to live with his wife and the fact that cohabitation had been resumed did not revive this right ex jure. Furthermore, he justified the refusal on grounds of public order and prevention of crime in view of the first applicant’s criminal conviction. On 12/11/1998 the Regional Court upheld this decision, but quashed the exclusion order.
The Court found that the second applicant and the applicants’ children could not, for several reasons, be expected to follow the first applicant to Turkey. Furthermore, the present case concerned a functioning family unit where parents and children were living together, the splitting up of which would constitute a very serious interference with the right protected by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court concluded that the respondent state, by refusing the extension of the first applicant’s residence permit, failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants’ interests on the one hand and its own interests in preventing disorder and crime on the other.
I.Individual measures
The applicants submitted no claim for just satisfaction. On 6/05/1999 the exclusion order against the first applicant was lifted. In November 2007 he received a residence permit based on Article 8 of the Convention, which is valid until 19/01/2013. This permit is renewable. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The Dutch authorities consider that given the direct effect of European Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all authorities concerned are expected to align their practice to the present judgment. With this aim, the judgment has been published in several legal journals in the Netherlands, in particular the NJCM-Bulletin (2006, No. 4, pp. 510-528), European Human Rights Cases (2006, No. 3, pp. 303-309) and Nederlands Juristenblad (2006, no.17, p. 952).
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy