FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53319/99
by Sead LOLIC
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrsE. Palm, President,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrR. Türmen,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 2 December 1999 and registered on 13 December 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Bosnian national of Muslim origin, born in Peci, near Srebrenica and currently living in Dongen, the Netherlands, with his spouse and three minor children. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. van Empel-Bouman, a lawyer practising in Den Bosch, the Netherlands. The respondent Government are represented by Mr R. Böcker, Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and his family were living in Peci until the applicant fled to Slovenia in 1991, shortly before the war broke out in Bosnia. His wife and children remained in Peci. After the ‘Fall of Srebrenica’ in 1995 the applicant’s wife and children fled to Špionica situated in the Tuzla canton where the majority population is Muslim. The applicant joined his family there.
On 29 May 1997 the applicant’s wife and three children entered the Netherlands where they requested asylum. On 1 July 1997 the applicant followed his family to the Netherlands where he also requested asylum. In both applications it was maintained that the applicant and his family could not return to Serb controlled Srebrenica or to Špionica.
On 3 October 1997 the State Secretary of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the asylum request of the applicant’s spouse and children. He did grant them a provisional residence permit (voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf) in accordance with the immigration policy regarding Bosnian refugees at the time. On 9 December 1997 the applicant’s spouse and children lodged an objection (bezwaar) with the State Secretary against the decision not to grant them refugee status.
Also on 3 October 1997 the State Secretary rejected the applicant’s request for asylum as unfounded dismissing his complaints under, inter alia, Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The State Secretary held that the applicant was not entitled to a provisional residence permit since he had entered the Netherlands after 1 June 1997, the Netherlands authorities having decided not to grant asylum seekers from Bosnia such permits any longer after that date. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 March 1998. He filed an objection with the State Secretary on 22 April 1998.
On 26 March 1998 the State Secretary decided upon the objection lodged by the applicant’s spouse and children. He confirmed the first decision to reject their asylum request but proceeded to grant them an unrestricted residence permit (vergunning tot verblijf zonder beperkingen) on humanitarian grounds in view of the traumatising events they had experienced in Srebrenica. On 23 April 1998 the applicant’s spouse and the children filed an appeal with the Hague Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) sitting in Zwolle, to the extent that their application for asylum was rejected.
On 21 September 1998 the State Secretary rejected the applicant’s objection. On 16 October 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Hague Regional Court sitting in Zwolle.
On 7 June 1999 the Regional Court rejected in one decision both the appeal of the applicant and that of his spouse and the children.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that, if returned to Bosnia, he was likely to be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal of the Netherlands authorities to allow him to reside with his family in the Netherlands constituted a breach of his right to respect for family life.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that his expulsion to Bosnia would subject him to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and infringe his right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
On 15 August 2001 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the present application in view of the fact that the authorities in the Netherlands had agreed to grant him a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy