CASE OF GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Garib v. the Netherlands (no. 43494/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-01-25 00:00:00)
Application no.: 43494/09
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-11-06 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1106JUD004349409
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: P4-2;P4-2-1
Judges: András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus Kūris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: WIJLING R.S.
Issue: Sections 5(2), 6(2), 7(1)(b) and 17 of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 78, ECHR 2016;Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 83, ECHR 2009;Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Ayangil and Others v. Turkey, no. 33294/03, § 50, 6 December 2011;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006 III;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014;Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 104, ECHR 2001 I;Codona v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 485/05, 7 February 2006;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 109, ECHR 2007 IV;Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 179, ECHR 2016;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 91, ECHR 2007 I;Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 59, 9 July 2015;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 39 in fine, Series A no. 18;Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004 III;Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003 VIII;Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 166, ECHR 2006 VIII;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 140-141, ECHR 2001-VII;Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 120, ECHR 2015;Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, and 2 others, §§ 194-195, 3 October 2008;Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (no. 4), no. 72331/01, § 26, 9 November 2006;Landvreugd v. the Netherlands, no. 37331/97, 4 June 2002;Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 132, Series A no. 102;Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 130, ECHR 2005 IX;Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 53, Series A no. 169;Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 35, Series A no. 62;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 86, ECHR 2016;N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 56, ECHR 2002 X;Noack and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 46346/99, ECHR 2000-VI;Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, ECHR 2002 IV;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 170, ECHR 2015;Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 136, ECHR 2015 (extracts);Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 97, ECHR 2011;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, §§ 47-48, 14 September 2010;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009;Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 41, ECHR 2003 VIII (extracts);Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006 VI;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, §§ 49-50, Series A no. 30;Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 98, 25 October 2012;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 116, ECHR 2012;Ward v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31888/03, 9 November 2004
External sources: Report of the Committee of Experts to the Committee of Ministers, Report H (65) 16, 18 October 1965, §§ 15 and 18
Conclusion: No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence)
Separate opinion: TRUE