CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 21 February 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48013/21 Mohammad Umad Taha AL FAKIH against the Netherlands lodged on 2 September 2021 communicated on 4 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Sudanese national who arrived in The Netherlands in 1999 when he was sixteen years old. In 2004 he was granted a residence permit with retroactive effect as of 2002, which permit had been regularly extended. On 18 August 2017 the applicant (timely) requested another extension of his residence permit. The Deputy Minister of Justice and Security denied this request and revoked the applicant’s residence permit retroactively as of 30   August 2013. According to the Deputy Minister, it appeared from the Personal Records Database ( Basisregistratie Personen ) that the applicant’s residency was de ‑ registered on 30 August 2013. As the applicant had not demonstrated that he remained in the Netherlands, it should be presumed that he had left the country on that date, and there was no indication that the applicant had quickly returned afterwards. It was also noted that his social security benefits were discontinued with effect from October 2013. As the applicant had left the Netherlands for more than six months, there was ground for revocation of his residence permit under the Aliens Act 2000 ( Vreemdelingenwet 2000 ). The Deputy Minister found that revocation did not violate Article 8 of the Convention because the applicant’s right to respect for   his private life was outweighed by the public interest of the economic well-being of the country. The fact that the applicant had found a job recently was no reason to strike the balance differently. The Deputy Minister’s decision to revoke the applicant’s residence permit was upheld in proceedings before the administrative court in first instance, which judgment was confirmed by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. The applicant, who submits that he has never left the Netherlands, complains under Article 8 that in revoking his residence permit the authorities did not strike a “fair balance”. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   In particular, did the interest of the economic well-being of the country outweigh the applicant’s interest in leading his private life in the Netherlands?