THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3051/06
by Y.O.K. and Others
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 January 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The first applicant is a Guinean national who was born in 1974 and is presumed to live in Guinea. The second and third applicants, the first applicant's children (“the children”), are Dutch nationals who were born in 2001 and 2004 respectively and live in the Netherlands. The President of the Chamber has granted the applicants' request that their identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). They were represented before the Court by Ms B. Pfeifle, a lawyer practising in Schiedam. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms Liselot Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicants complained of a violation of their right to respect for their family life as protected by Article 8 of the Convention in that the first applicant was required by the Netherlands authorities to return to her country of origin and apply for a provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf) there as a prerequisite to applying for a residence permit for the purpose of exercising family life in the Netherlands.
On 14 January 2010 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants' complaints detailed above.
On 30 March 2010 the Government informed the Registry that it had appeared that the first applicant had left the Netherlands for Guinea assisted by the International Organisation for Migration. This letter was forwarded to the applicants' representative on 12 April 2010, who was requested to inform the Court whether the applicants still wished to maintain their application.
On 17 May 2010 the applicants' representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted 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 considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy