THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30303/06
by Xiao Qing YANG
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer,
MrsI. Ziemele,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Xiao Qing Yang, is a Chinese national who was born in 1965 and lives in Usquert, the Netherlands. She is represented before the Court by Ms N.B. Swart, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The respondent Government are 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.
After having unsuccessfully applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1994 and 1995, the applicant applied for a residence permit for the purpose of residing with her two children who were born in the Netherlands and who have Dutch nationality. This application was rejected for the reason that the applicant was not in possession of the required provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf). Such a visa is normally a prerequisite for the grant of a residence permit, which confers more permanent residence rights, and it has to be applied for in a person’s country of origin. The final decision was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State) on 10 February 2006.
On 25 July 2007 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted a residence permit pursuant to the terms of a general amnesty (generaal pardon) for rejected asylum seekers who had applied for asylum before 1 April 2001, which amnesty entered had into force on 15 June 2007. In a letter of 31 August 2007 the applicant confirmed that she had no objection to the present application being struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained that the obligation imposed on her by the Dutch authorities to return to China in order to apply for a provisional residence visa was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4.
THE LAW
Invoking Article 8 of the Convention and Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 the applicant complained that she was required to return to China in order to apply for a visa. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been granted a residence permit, that she is thus no longer under an obligation to return to her country of origin and that she does not intend to pursue her application to the Court. 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 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. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy