THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41583/04
by Dimitri GOLOUBEV
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the parties’ submissions,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dimitri Goloubev, who claims to be stateless, is of Russian origin. He was born in 1963 and lives in ‘s-Gravendeel. He is represented before the Court by Ms H. Kneuvels, a lawyer practising in Dordrecht. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 June 1990, the President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) issued personal Decree no. 292, granting the applicant permission to renounce his citizenship of the USSR. On 18 September 1990, the applicant was provided with an identity and travel document for stateless persons (“certificat d’apatrid”, no. 007325) which was valid until 18 September 1991 and issued by the USSR authorities. This document indicated that the applicant would be travelling to Yugoslavia, transiting through Germany.
The applicant left the USSR on 7 November 1990. On 11 January 1994, after stays in various other European countries, he entered the Netherlands where, on 13 January 1994, he applied for asylum or a residence permit on grounds of compelling humanitarian reasons. The final negative decision on this request was taken on 28 September 1995 by the President of the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague.
On 11 July 1994, pending the asylum proceedings, the applicant also filed a request for a residence permit for the purpose of stay with his Netherlands partner Ms P. On 19 July 1995, the Deputy Minister (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected this request, considering that under the applicable regulations the applicant was required to hold a valid national passport. The Deputy Minister further held that it had not been demonstrated and that it had not appeared that the applicant could no longer be provided with a valid national passport and that the applicant’s submissions on this point were insufficient for accepting that the applicant should be exempted from this requirement.
The applicant challenged this decision in administrative appeal proceedings. The final negative decision on his request of 11 July 1994 was given on 3 July 1998 by the Acting President of the Regional Court of The Hague. The Acting President accepted as correct the Deputy Minister’s decision that the applicant was required to hold a valid national passport, and considered that it could be asked of him to turn to the authorities of the Russian Federation for the purpose of obtaining Russian citizenship. The Acting President further found that it would be premature to conclude that such a request was bound to fail.
On 22 October 1998, the applicant filed a fresh request for a residence permit on grounds of compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature. The final negative decision on this request was handed down on 28 May 2004 by the provisional-measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the Regional Court of The Hague. This ruling, in its relevant part, reads:
“The present application for a regular residence permit for a fixed period for the purpose of “stay as an alien who, through no fault of his own, is unable to leave the Netherlands” has been rejected on grounds of the circumstance that the petitioner does not hold a valid national passport containing a provisional residence visa. As in his previous application, the petitioner has also in the present procedure adopted the position that it is impossible for him to re-obtain Russian citizenship and that, therefore, he cannot obtain a passport. In substantiation thereof, he has submitted a declaration, with translation, of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Netherlands in which it is stated that the petitioner is not a Russian citizen. By this, the petitioner has proven that he is not a Russian citizen, but not that he is no longer eligible for Russian citizenship and that the Russian authorities will not provide him with a valid passport.”
B. Events after the introduction of the application
On 16 October 2007, the applicant informed the Court that he had been granted a residence permit pursuant to the terms of a general amnesty (generaal pardon) for rejected asylum seekers who had applied for asylum before 1 April 2001. This general amnesty had entered into force on 15 June 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant initially complained that the manner in which the Netherlands authorities dealt with his statelessness amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in that it resulted in distress owing to a lengthy situation of stalemate, that the Netherlands authorities’ decision to maintain, and not to exempt him from, the obligation to hold a valid national passport was contrary to his rights under Article 8 of the Convention; and that he did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of these grievances.
THE LAW
On 16 October 2007, the applicant informed the Court that he had been granted a residence permit pursuant to the terms of a general amnesty for rejected asylum seekers. However, as the Netherlands authorities continued to refuse to acknowledge his statelessness by indicating on the residence permit granted that he was a citizen of Russia, the applicant wished to pursue the application.
In their reaction of 13 November 2007, the Government considered that, as a residence permit had been granted to the applicant, the application could be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant has now been granted a residence permit and that there is no indication in the case file that he has ever been removed from the Netherlands. It reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
Considering that the Convention or its Protocols do not, as such, guarantee a right to renounce a particular nationality (see, mutatis mutandis, Makuc and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 26828/06, § 160, 31 May 2007) or a right of an alien to enter, reside or remain in a particular country (see Makuc and Others, cited above, § 161) , the Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the present case it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). It is further satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy