Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 160
February 2013
Abdulrahman v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 66994/12
Decision 5.2.2013 [Section III]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Six month period
Submission of original application form outside eight weeks allowed by Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings: inadmissible

Facts – The applicant, an Iraqi national, complained of a refusal by the Netherlands authorities to grant him a residence permit. The final domestic ruling in respect of his first request for such a permit was sent to him on 24 April 2012 and the regional-court judgment in respect of his second request on 5 April 2012. On 5 October 2012 the applicant’s representative sent a fax to the Court Registry stating that the applicant wished to lodge a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. On 18 October 2012 the applicant’s representative was notified by the Registry, pursuant to Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court and paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings, that he had to return the application form to the Court not later than 13 December 2012 (within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter) otherwise the date of submission of the completed application form would be taken as the date of introduction of the application. Under cover of a letter dated 13 December 2012 the applicant’s representative submitted the original duly completed and signed application form of the same date, an original authority form duly signed by both the applicant and the representative, and copies of relevant supporting documents. The envelope was postmarked 14 December 2012.
Law – Article 35 § 1: The date on which the envelope containing the original application form had been postmarked, namely 14 December 2012, should be considered as the date of introduction of the application in the instant case. Since the six-month period for submitting an application to the Court had started to run on 25 April 2012 in respect of the applicant’s first request for a residence permit and on 6 April 2012 in respect of the second, the application had been submitted out of time.
Conclusion: inadmissible (out of time).
(See also Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, 1 June 2010, Information Note no. 131)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes