THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17499/03
by Forough SHINIPOURYAN
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Forough Shinipouryan, is an Iranian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Sneek. She was represented before the Court by Mr J.C. van Zundert, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Ms J. Schukking and 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.
The applicant entered the Netherlands in January 1994, together with her two children, who had been born in 1990 and 1992 respectively. Her husband joined them in March 1994. A third child was born to the applicant and her husband in 1999.
The family applied for asylum in the Netherlands twice, but both times their requests were rejected. Finally, on 20 June 2000, the applicant’s husband and children were granted a residence permit pursuant to a special regulation according to which rejected Iranian asylum seekers, who had applied for asylum more than three years previously, could be granted a residence permit, provided a number of conditions were met. This regulation was introduced in view of the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the policy of the Netherlands authorities in relation to Iranian asylum seekers, a situation that had existed for some considerable time. The applicant’s husband and her children have since also obtained Netherlands nationality.
The applicant was not granted such a residence permit in view of the fact that she had on two occasions, in 1994 and 1995, accepted deals (transactie) proposed by a public prosecutor. These deals entailed that, if the applicant paid a fine, criminal proceedings would not be brought against her on charges of shoplifting. On each occasion the applicant had paid 100 Netherlands guilders (45 euros).
However, on 31 January 2005 the Government informed the Court that the applicant would, upon her request, be granted a residence permit. In a letter to the Court of 3 March 2005, the applicant indicated that she now wished to withdraw the application.
COMPLAINT
The applicant originally complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal to allow her to reside in the Netherlands constituted a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.
THE LAW
The applicant originally complained that the refusal of the Netherlands authorities to allow her to reside in that country was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court notes, however, that the applicant will now be granted a residence permit and that she wishes to withdraw the 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 case. 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.
Vincent BergerBoštjan M. Zupančıč
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy