AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 14014/88
                      by Fadma EL BELHAJI
                      against the Netherlands


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 15 July 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 30 June 1988
by Fadma EL BELHAJI against the Netherlands and registered
on 11 July 1988 under file No. 14014/88;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


THE FACTS

        The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows:

        The applicant is a Moroccan citizen born in 1956 in Ijarmauas,
Morocco.  She is unemployed and at present residing in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.  Before the Commission she is represented by M.D. van
ALLER, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

        The applicant is the third of nine children.  Her father left
Morocco in 1965 and was granted a residence permit in the Netherlands
on 8 December 1978.  He continued to support his family financially.

        On 1 September 1982 the applicant's mother and the five
youngest children joined the father in the Netherlands.  The applicant
was required to remain in Morocco to tend to her sick grandmother.  She
was financially supported by her father.

        In February 1985 the grandmother died.  Apparently,
according to Moroccan law, the applicant was obliged to go and live
with her father, because he is still her legal guardian.

        On approximately 3 October 1985 the applicant arrived in the
Netherlands.  On 11 February 1986 she applied for a residence permit
for the purpose of living with her parents.  This was denied on the
same day.  A request for a revision was denied by the Deputy Minister
of Justice on 3 June 1986.

        On 15 February 1988 the Council of State (Raad van State)
rejected her appeal.  It considered that the applicant's ties with her
family in the Netherlands had been broken, so that she did not meet
the requirements under Dutch law for a residence permit.  Her appeal
for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, in which she stated
that, for both legal and religious reasons, she could not live alone
in Morocco, was rejected.  The Council of State considered that, inter
alia, in view of her age and the fact that she had always lived in
Morocco, there was no reason to assume that she would not be able to
establish a reasonable, independent existence for herself in Morocco.

        The applicant has been informed that she will have to leave
the Netherlands, but no expulsion decision has as yet been taken.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicant complains that she is not capable of living on
her own in Morocco.  The applicant has never been to school and has
never had a job.  She has always been dependent on her father.
Furthermore, a woman living alone in Morocco is considered to be
immoral, and in rural communities a woman is not allowed in the
streets unaccompanied.  She contends that by expelling her the
Netherlands will be condemning her to a miserable existence.  She
invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in this regard.

        Furthermore, the applicant complains that the Netherlands has
erroneously found that she is no longer a part of her father's
family.  She contends that her expulsion violates her right to a
family life.  She invokes Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention in
this regard.

THE LAW

        The applicant has complained that by expelling her to Morocco
the Netherlands will be condemning her to a miserable existence.  By
forcing her to live as a single woman in Morocco, the Netherlands will
be treating her inhumanly in violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

        The Commisison first recalls that according to its established
case-law the right to asylum and the freedom from expulsion are not as
such included among the rights and freedoms mentioned in the
Convention but that the expulsion of a person may nevertheless, in
certain exceptional circumstances, raise an issue under the Convention
and in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3) where there are serious grounds to
fear that the person concerned would be subjected, in the State to
which he is to be sent, to treatment which is in violation of this
Article (see e.g.  No. 1802/62, Dec. 26.3.63, Yearbook 6 pp. 462, 480;
No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.84, D.R. 36 pp. 209, 231;  No. 10564/83, Dec.
10.12.84, D.R. 40 pp. 262, 265).

        In the present case, however, the applicant is an adult woman
and her complaint is that she will have a difficult life on her own in
Morocco.  She has not submitted that she can expect to receive any
sort of physical harm in Morocco.

        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the
envisaged expulsion to Morocco cannot raise an issue under Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention.

        It follows that the applicant's complaint in respect of the
Netherlands regarding a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention must
be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

        Furthermore, the applicant has complained that her imminent
expulsion interferes with her right to respect for her family life.
She has invoked Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.  This article provides as
follows:

        "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private
        and family life, his home and his correspondence.

        2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority
        with the exercise of this right except such as is in
        accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
        society in the interest of national security, public safety
        or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention
        of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
        or for  the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

        The Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee
a right to enter or reside in a particular country.  However, the
Commission has also held that, in view of the right to respect for
family life ensured by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the expulsion of a
person from a country in which his close relatives reside may raise an issue
under this provision of the Convention (cf. e.g.  No. 7816/79, Dec. 19.5.77,
D.R. 9 p. 219 and No. 845/78, Dec. 6.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 98).

        In such cases, the Commission first examines whether such a
degree of dependency exists between the applicant and her relatives
as to give rise to the protection envisaged by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention (cf.  Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81, Dec. 11.5.82, D.R. 29
p. 176).

        The Commission notes that the applicant lived in Morocco with
her mother and younger brothers and sisters until September 1982.
Between 1982 and 1985 she tended to her grandmother at the behest of
her family.  During this time she was supported by her father.  Since
October 1985 she has again been living with her family, in the
Netherlands.

        In these circumstances the Commission is satisfied that there
is family life between the applicant and her father, mother and
younger brothers and sisters, within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1
(Art. 8-1) of the Convention.  Consequently, the applicant's intended expulsion
can be considered as an interference with her right to respect for family life.

        The question which remains to be examined is whether this
interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8) of
the Convention.

        The Commission notes that the decision to refuse the applicant
a residence permit was taken on the basis of Dutch immigration policy
which lays down special conditions for the granting of residence
permits on the grounds of family reunification.

        The Commission notes that the Dutch immigration policy
establishes these special conditions for the purpose of regulating the
labour market, and generally to restrict immigration into a densely
populated country.  Thus, the legitimate aim pursued is the
preservation of the country's economic well-being, within the meaning
of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (see Eur.  Court H.R.,
Berrehab judgment of 21 June 1988, to be published in Series A no.
138, para. 26).

        In the present case the applicant had lived in Morocco until
she was 29 years old.  She had not lived with her father since 1965.
She was capable of taking care of her sick grandmother between 1982
and 1985, although she was supported by her father.  She is at present
32 years old and has older brothers and/or sisters in Morocco.

        A special feature of the present case is the applicant's
assertion that, for religious and cultural reasons, she will have
difficulty in living alone in Morocco.  Despite this humanitarian
aspect of the case, the Commission considers that, in the
circumstances and in view of the applicant's age, respect for her
family life does not outweigh valid considerations relating to Dutch
immigration policy.

        The Commission considers, therefore, that the interference
cannot be said to be disporportionate to the legitimate aim pursued
and is justified as necessary in a democratic society within the
meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

        It follows that the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of
the Convention.

        For these reasons, the Commisison

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.



  Secretary to the Commisison              President of the Commission




        (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)