A Tunisian national lived in France. In his youth. He was deported after being convicted of a number of serious criminal offences. He returned illegally and formed a relationship with a French national whose child he acknowledged to be his. He complained that his deportation was in breach of Article 8. The Commission admitted the complaint saying that, despite the serious nature of the convictions that had led to the deportation, a fair balance had not been struck between the aims pursued and the right to respect for private and family life.
Held: ‘The Court acknowledges that it is for the Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, to control the entry and residence of aliens and notably to order the expulsion of aliens convicted of criminal offences. However, their decisions in this field must, in so far as they may interfere with a right protected under Article 8(1), be necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether the interference was ‘necessary’, the Court makes allowance for the margin of appreciation that is left to the Contracting States in this field. Its task consists of ascertaining whether the deportation in issue struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other.’ There was no violation of Article 8 in this case..
22070/93, (1996) 22 EHRR 228, [1996] ECHR 19
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – Bouchelkia v France ECHR 29-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Mehemi v France ECHR 26-Sep-1997
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 September 2021; Ref: scu.165429