THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 40012/08 and 38077/09
by Clinton Allotey KPAPOE and Others
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Egbert Myjer,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 14 August 2008 and 2 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
Application no. 40012/08 was lodged by Mr Clinton Allotey Kpapoe – the first applicant –, a Ghanaian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Amsterdam, also on behalf of his four minor children, who were born in 1996 (twins), 1999 and 2003 respectively and who have Dutch nationality. Application no. 38077/09 was also lodged by Mr Kpapoe, as well as by his wife and mother of his children, Ms Geneviève Serwah Anang – the second applicant –, a Dutch national of Ghanaian origin who was born in 1977 and also lives in Amsterdam. They were represented before the Court by Mr U.J. van der Veldt, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicants complained that the decision to refuse the first applicant a residence permit for the sole reason that he did not hold a provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf) was an act of excessive formalism, constituting an unjustified interference with their right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. In application no. 38077/09 the applicants also raised complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
On 31 May 2010 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints detailed above.
On 24 September 2010 the Government informed the Court that they had notified the first applicant that he was eligible for a residence permit.
On 30 September 2010 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw the applications since the first applicant had reached an agreement with the Government concerning his residence status in the Netherlands.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a and b) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy