ESMAILI proti Nizozemsku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23254/05
by Narges Hadj ESMAILI
against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr L. Caflisch,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 June 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the respondent Government’s submissions and the applicant’s response,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Narges Hadj Esmaili, is an Iranian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Leidschendam. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. van Schijndel, a lawyer practising in The Hague. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Schukking, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant and her child left Iran in 2000 and travelled to the Netherlands where she filed two unsuccessful asylum requests. During her stay in the Netherlands, the applicant met and started a relationship with a Netherlands national and, in 2003, a child was born out of this relationship.

The final negative decision on the applicant’s second asylum request was taken on 12 April 2005 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) of the Council of State (Raad van State).

On 21 February 2006, the respondent Government informed the Court that they were prepared to settle the case, and that a residence permit would be granted to the applicant if she would file a fresh asylum request. In a letter of 20 April 2006, the applicant informed the Court that, by decision of 14 April 2006, she and her two minor children had been granted asylum and that, in accordance with the friendly settlement concluded with the respondent Government, she wished to withdraw her application.

COMPLAINT

The applicant originally complained that her expulsion from the Netherlands to Iran would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complained principally of the refusal to allow her to reside in the Netherlands. The Court notes that, in accordance with a settlement agreement reached between the parties, the applicant and her two children have now been granted a residence permit and that the applicant wishes to withdraw the application. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case. It has further found no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine.

Accordingly, the Court considers that the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court should be discontinued, and that it should be struck off the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President