CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 décembre 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        Application No. 12881/87                       by G. KARLI and E. BALCI                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 December 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                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 12 March 1987 by G. Karli and E. Balci against the Netherlands and registered on 29 April 1987 under file No. 12881/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   &_THE FACTS&S           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.           The first applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1960.   The second applicant is her daughter, born in 1986.   They are at present living in the Netherlands and are represented in the proceedings before the Commission by Ms. van Aller, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.           On 20 August 1981 the first applicant married a Turkish national in Turkey.   He has lived in the Netherlands since 1972, where he has a residence permit, and is a so-called "second generation immigrant".           The exact date of the first applicant's entry into the Netherlands is unknown.           On 27 March 1984 the first applicant requested a residence permit from the Head of Police (Hoofd van de Plaatselijke politie) of The Hague.           The permit was refused on the same date on the grounds that the husband did not have proper living accommodation or sufficient means to support them, as required by Dutch law.           She appealed against this decision to the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie).           This appeal was rejected on 3 July 1984 on the ground that the first applicant's husband, although in temporary employment at the time of the appeal, would not have sufficient means to support the applicants in the near future.           The first applicant thereupon appealed to the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State), which rejected the appeal on 12 December 1986 on the same ground.           According to Dutch law this decision also affects the position of the second applicant, although she was born in the course of the proceedings and was therefore not an appellant in these proceedings.           The effect of this decision is that the applicants must leave the Netherlands voluntarily or risk expulsion.           According to the statement of a psychiatrist, the first applicant's husband is extremely depressed and has suicidal tendencies because of the impending expulsion of his wife and daughter.           The applicants submit that they would have to live in impoverished conditions if they had to return to Turkey, because their family has financial problems.           It appears that the Government's policy concerning the position of relatives of second generation immigrants wishing to join them in the Netherlands has changed, since the decision of the Deputy Minister of Justice was taken in that lack of sufficient means of subsistence can now only be held against such an immigrant if he can be held responsible for it.           The decision by the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction was based on the situation at the time of the decision by the Deputy Minister of Justice and therefore on the old policy.           The applicants' lawyer, on 11 March 1987, asked the police whether they could request another residence permit and were told that they could not.           The following day the applicants requested a residence permit in writing.   The Head of Police of The Hague, taking into account the new policy, refused the new request on 21 April 1987.           The applicants appealed against this decision to the Deputy Minister of Justice.   This appeal was given suspensive effect. On 17 August 1987, the Deputy Minister of Justice granted them a temporary residence permit valid until 23 March 1988 under the condition that the first applicant lives with her husband.     &_COMPLAINTS&S           The applicants allege that their impending expulsion has caused severe damage to the mental health of the first applicant's husband.           They claim that this constitutes inhuman treatment of the husband as well as of the applicants.   They invoke Article 3 of the Convention.           The second complaint concerns the composition of the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction.           The applicants claim that as a result of the composition of the court, they were not accorded a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.           They allege that, as a result of the decision by the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction, the first and second applicants will be deprived of their civil right to live with their husband and father respectively and to be supported by him.           They invoke Articles 6, 8 and 12 of the Convention.           Furthermore, they claim that neither the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction nor the Minister of Justice can be considered to be an effective remedy because they are not independent and impartial tribunals.           Moreover, they are deprived of the possibility of making a new request for a residence permit and thus of obtaining a decision which is based on the new policy.   In this respect they invoke Article 13 of the Convention.           Finally they complain that the first applicant has been discriminated against because the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction took into account that her husband could be held responsible for being dismissed.           According to the applicants this was not in accordance with the policy of that time.   They invoke Article 14 of the Convention.     &_PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S           The application was introduced on 12 March 1987 and registered on 29 April 1987.   In a letter from the applicants dated 10 September 1987, the Commission was informed that the first applicant had been granted a temporary residence permit.   The Secretariat consequently requested the applicants to indicate whether they wish to maintain their application before the Commission.   By letter of 28 October 1987, the applicants informed the Commission that they wish to withdraw their application.     &_REASONS FOR THE DECISION&S           The Commission notes that the applicants have now been granted a temporary residence permit and wish to withdraw their application.   The Commission sees no reasons relating to the general interest to continue an examination of their application.   The Commission, therefore, accedes to the applicants' request to withdraw their application.           Having regard to Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission               DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.         Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission            (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)