The applicant a Turkish national, aged 55 years, had lived in Germany for 30 years. He was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment for a drugs offence, and then ordered expuelled to Turkey. His wife had serious psychiatric problems. She needed him and could not follow him to Turkey.
Held: The complaint under Article 8 was inadmissible. The court’s task was to determine whether ‘the measure in issue struck a fair balance between the conflicting interests, namely, on the one side, the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, and, on the other, the prevention of disorder or crime’. ‘The offence indisputably constituted a serious breach of public order and undermined the protection of the health of others. In view of the devastating effects of drugs on people’s lives, the Court appreciates why the authorities show great firmness with regard to those who actively contribute to the spread of this scourge (see the Dalia v France judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p.92 *54). Although the applicant’s removal from Germany would involve considerable hardship, the Court considers, in the light of the foregoing, and taking into account the margin of appreciation left to the Contracting States in such circumstances (see the Boughanemi v France judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports 1996 II, p 610, *41), that the decision to expel the applicant was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. There is therefore no appearance of a violation of Article 8.’
Citations:
62444/00
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.191194