THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45225/12
Serge MUNYANEZA and Florence BAJYANAMA
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The first applicant, Mr Serge Munyaneza, is a Rwandan national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Oosterwijk. The second applicant, Ms Florence Bajyanama, is a Dutch national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Utrecht. They were represented before the Court by Mr W. Boelens, a lawyer practising in Utrecht.
The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal of the first applicant’s request for a residence permit for the purpose of exercising family life with the second applicant in the Netherlands. That request had been refused because it was considered that the first applicant’s Rwandan nationality had not been sufficiently established.
On 18 March 2013 the President of the Section decided to adjourn the Court’s proceedings while the first applicant continued his efforts to obtain new identity documents establishing his nationality.
By letter of 29 April 2014 the Government informed the Court that the first applicant was eligible for a temporary residence permit for the purpose of exercising family life in the Netherlands and that he had been invited to lodge a fresh request for a temporary residence permit with the immigration authorities.
The first applicant having lodged such a fresh request, the Government informed the Court on 21 May 2014 that this request had been granted and they requested the Court to strike the case out of the list of pending cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
By letter of 22 May 2014 the applicants’ representative also informed the Court that the first applicant’s fresh request for a temporary residence permit had been granted and that the applicants therefore wished to withdraw the application.
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, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy