CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 août 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s36C0C433 { width:16.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s71220220 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s95C8C447 { width:21.01pt; display:inline-block } .sB8E7E177 { width:263.17pt; display:inline-block } .s78E5042 { width:4.01pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 48989/99 by Andry Misman TROENOSEMITO against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   August 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 12 April 1999, Having regard to the Court’s (former First Section) partial decision of 22   May   2001, 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 is a Dutch national, born in 1963 in Surinam, and presently living in The Hague, the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr   C.E. Sanches, a lawyer based in The Hague. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) for his son Andy who had been born from a previous marriage of the applicant and who was living in Surinam. On 11 April 2001 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that Andy had been placed in a children’s home in Surinam following the death of his grandfather in 2000. In view of these changed circumstances, a new request for a provisional residence visa was made. After a negative decision taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this request had been quashed by the Regional Court ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of The Hague, a positive decision was taken on 17 April 2003. The visa was issued to the applicant’s son on 28 May 2003. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his minor son was refused residence in the Netherlands for the purpose of family reunification, as a result of which he was unable to enjoy family life with his child. THE LAW The applicant complained that the decision to refuse a provisional residence visa to his son contravened Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to respect for family life. However, the Court notes that the applicant’s son has now been allowed to enter the Netherlands on a provisional residence visa. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b and c) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that the matter has been resolved and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights 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 remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President