THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 6315/08 and 9597/12
Mustafa CÜZDAN
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Dmitry Dedov, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 5 February 2008 and 2 February 2012 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant in both cases, Mr Mustafa Cüzdan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Winschoten. In application no. 6315/08 he was initially represented before the Court by Mr R. van Asperen, a legal advisor practising in Haren. In application no. 9597/12 he was initially represented by Mr B. van Dijk, a lawyer practising in Haren, and subsequently by the aforementioned Mr van Asperen. From 5 July 2018 onwards, the applicant was represented by Ms N.B. Swart, a lawyer practising in Groningen, in both applications.
The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms K. Adhin, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal to allow him to reside in the Netherlands with his father and, in application no. 9597/12, also under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 that he had not had an effective remedy.
3. After the Government had been given notice of the applications, they informed the Court that on 16 April 2018 the Deputy Minister of Justice and Security (staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid) had decided to accede to a request, lodged by the applicant on 2 February 2018, for a residence permit for the purposes of enjoying private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. The Government requested the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
4. By letter dated 15 June 2018, the applicant requested the Court not to strike the applications out without awarding him financial compensation for the years spent in uncertainty in the Netherlands which had caused both material and immaterial damage.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
6. In view of the fact that the applicant has been granted a residence permit allowing him to remain in the Netherlands, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 97-103, ECHR 2007‑I). Moreover, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the applications under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
7. In respect of the applicant’s claim for compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that Article 41 of the Convention allows it to award just satisfaction to the “injured party” only if it has previously “[found] that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto”, which it has not in these cases (see Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 132).
8. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.
Fatoş Aracı Dmitry Dedov
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy