Application No. 28103/95
by Patricia OKERE and Stephan I. EDIAE
against the Netherlands
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
26 February 1996, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President
H. DANELIUS
C.L. ROZAKIS
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
E. KONSTANTINOV
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
P. LORENZEN
K. HERNDL
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 July 1995 by
Patricia OKERE and Stephan I. EDIAE against the Netherlands and
registered on 3 August 1995 under file No. 28103/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
FACTS
The applicants are Nigerian citizens, born in 1967 and 1964
respectively, and residing in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands. Before the
Commission they are represented by Mr. L.B.J. Movig, a lawyer
practising in Den Helder, the Netherlands.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows:
On 29 June 1990 the second applicant arrived in the Netherlands
where he requested asylum. He was granted refugee status on
15 March 1993.
The first applicant arrived in the Netherlands on
28 September 1991. Her request for asylum and a subsequent request for
a residence permit to remain as partner of a Mr. W. were both rejected
by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie).
In January 1993 the first applicant moved in with the second
applicant and they intended to marry in August 1993 when the first
applicant would also apply for a residence permit to remain as spouse
of the second applicant. However, as the first applicant's immigration
file was lost, both the wedding and the application for a residence
permit were postponed.
On 17 September 1993 new regulations came into force imposing
certain income requirements on the spouse of a person applying for a
residence permit. Before this date, people recognised as refugees did
not have to comply with any income requirement if they wished their
spouse to settle with them. The applicants married on 29 October 1993
and the new regulations were therefore applicable to the first
applicant's subsequent request for a residence permit made on
15 December 1993. The regulations require guaranteed employment for
twelve future months, or a history of regular employment during the
past three years. The second applicant has regular work through an
employment agency, but he may be laid off during slack periods.
On 25 August 1994 the Deputy Minister of Justice refused to grant
the first applicant a residence permit, considering that the second
applicant was at that time in receipt of unemployment benefits and did
therefore not comply with the regulations. The first applicant filed
an objection (bezwaarschrift) against this decision with the Deputy
Minister on 29 August 1994. She further requested the President of The
Hague Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) to grant an interim
measure (voorlopige voorziening) in order for her not to be expelled
pending the objection.
Following a hearing on 10 November 1994, the President rejected
the request for an interim measure. As he was of the opinion that the
objection filed by the first applicant stood no chance of success he
also rejected the objection. On 10 December 1994 the first applicant
requested the Regional Court to review (herzien) the decision of its
President and a hearing took place on 15 February 1995. The Regional
Court rejected the request for a review on 1 March 1995.
On 7 April 1995 the first applicant was ordered to leave the
Netherlands before 16 April 1995 but she did not do so. The first
applicant gave birth to a daughter on 15 June 1995.
On 2 November 1995 the applicants' representative informed the
Commission that the first applicant had been granted a residence
permit. The applicants wish to maintain the application.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that
the expulsion of the first applicant would violate their, and their
daughter's, right to respect for their family life. They further argue
that no strict income requirements may be imposed on recognised
refugees who wish their spouse to live with them or that, in any case,
seasonal work through an employment agency may be considered as
complying with those requirements. In this respect they invoke Article
14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 3 July 1995 and registered on
3 August 1995.
On 7 July 1995 the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The applicants complain that the expulsion of the first applicant
as a result of the application of certain income requirements would be
contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.
The Commission notes that the first applicant has been granted
a residence permit and that, consequently, she will not be expelled.
In this situation the Commission finds that the matter which has
been the subject of the application has been resolved within the
meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. The Commission,
furthermore, having regard to Article 30 para. 1 in fine, finds no
special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in
the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the
application.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy