BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sylvestre Adande GODONOU and v the Netherlands - 29754/04 [2011] ECHR 1065 (16 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1065.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1065 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
29754/04
by Sylvestre Adande GODONOU and
Karin Jacoba
GODONOU-BOEREMA
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Luis
López Guerra,
President,
Egbert
Myjer,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Sylvestre Adande Godonou, a Togolese national, and his wife Mrs Karin Jacoba Godonou-Boerema, a Netherlands national, were born in 1980 and 1970 respectively and live in Kolham. They were represented before the Court by Ms I.M. Zuidhoek, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr R.A.A. Böcker and Mrs J. Schukking, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention about a breach of their right to respect for family life in that, before he was eligible for a residence permit in the Netherlands, the Dutch authorities required the first applicant to travel to Ghana to apply for a provisional residence permit (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf), which it was realistically impossible for him to do. They further argued that the expulsion of the first applicant would amount to a de facto expulsion of the second applicant and her children, all Dutch nationals, in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 4. Finally, the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings on the first applicant’s request for asylum had not been fair.
On 3 December 2004 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints detailed above. On 12 April 2005 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded to the applicants, who submitted observations in reply on 31 May 2005.
On 27 October 2010 the Registry sent a letter to the applicants requesting information about any possible further developments concerning the present case and asking them to submit any relevant decisions of the domestic authorities which had not been submitted previously.
In letters of 17 November 2010 and 6 January 2011 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw the application since the first applicant had in the meantime been issued a residence permit in the Netherlands.
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 and b) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case.
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.
Marialena Tsirli Luis López Guerra
Deputy
Registrar President