THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10980/04
by Karen HARUTYUNIAN
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 24 March 2004,
Having regard to the decision to adjourn the Court’s proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings in the Netherlands,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Karen Harutyunian, is an Armenian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Groningen. He was represented before the Court by Mr U.H. Hansma, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 December 1999 the applicant arrived in the Netherlands, together with his wife, where, on 12 January 2000, they applied for asylum.
On 13 July 2000 the Deputy Secretary of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the requests for asylum lodged by the applicant and his wife, against which decisions they lodged an objection (bezwaar). Following a hearing by an official board of inquiry (ambtelijke commissie), the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie – the successor to the Deputy Secretary of Justice) declared the objection lodged by the applicant’s wife well-founded on 30 July 2002 and granted her a temporary residence permit for the purpose of asylum. By a decision of the same date, the Minister dismissed the objection lodged by the applicant. Apart from finding that the applicant’s personal account contained insufficient grounds for him to be granted asylum, the Minister also considered that he was ineligible for a residence permit for the purpose of asylum on the basis of Article 29 § 1 sub (e) of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) as he did not have the same nationality as his wife, who is an Azeri national. According to this provision, the spouse of an alien who has been granted a temporary residence permit for the purpose of asylum may also be granted such a permit if, inter alia, he or she has the same nationality as the alien.
The applicant appealed against this decision. On 11 September 2003 the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in Breda, rejected the appeal and agreed with the Minister that the applicant, if returned to Armenia, would not run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The Regional Court further agreed with the Minister that the applicant’s claim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention could not lead to the granting of a residence permit within the framework of the proceedings on his request for asylum, since – apart from in Article 29 § 1 sub (e) – the Aliens Act 2000 did not provide for the possibility of a residence permit for the purpose of asylum being issued in order to protect family life within the meaning of Article 8. The Regional Court noted that it was not in dispute that the applicant was not eligible for a residence permit pursuant to Article 29 § 1 sub (e).
On 22 August 2005, at the suggestion of the Court, the applicant applied for a residence permit for the purpose of family reunion in the Netherlands. On 14 October 2005 the Court decided to adjourn its examination of the present application pending these proceedings in the Netherlands. The Minister rejected the new application on 15 February 2006, against which decision the applicant appealed to the Regional Court of The Hague.
The applicant’s representative informed the Court on 5 October 2007 that the applicant 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, which amnesty had entered into force on 15 June 2007. One of the conditions for being issued this residence permit was the withdrawal of all proceedings pending in the Netherlands.
In a letter of 15 November 2007 the applicant’s representative wrote that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained that, if he were expelled to Armenia, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
He further complained that the refusal of the Netherlands authorities to grant him a residence permit for the purpose of asylum constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the refusal to admit him to the Netherlands constituted a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been granted a residence permit, that he is thus no longer at risk of being expelled and that, for this reason, he does not intend to pursue his application. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, it is appropriate 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