da Silva and Hoogkamer , cited above, § 39).

The Board considered in detail the first applicant’s arguments based on Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v.

da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands [no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006-I], Osman v.

Par conséquent, les limites de la critique admissible étaient plus larges que dans le cas de simples particuliers ( Urbino Rodrigues de Silva c.

European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis

’une ou plusieurs des personnes concernées et celle de savoir s’il existe des éléments touchant au contrôle de l’immigration ou des considérations d’ordre public pesant en faveur d’une exclusion ( Rodrigues

José Miguel Tavares Mora do Vale et M me Helena Maria Tavares Mora do Vale Castanheira Rodrigues, ont demandé à la Cour de reconnaître leur qualité pour se substituer à leur parents dans le cadre de la

  174-75, § 38, and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006 ‑ I).

The court argued further that Article 8 of the Convention did not compel the defendant to treat the applicants like their adult sons referring to the ECHR judgment Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the

precarious from the outset, it is likely to be only in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see, among others, Rodrigues

Miranda Rodrigues , professeur de droit       à l’Université catholique de Porto,   conseils ; - pour la Commission   M. A.

For the sixth applicant’s removal to be considered incompatible with Article 8, truly exceptional circumstances would need to be shown to exist ( Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer , cited above, § 39).

previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues

da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 39 with further references, ECHR 2006 ‑ I). 56.

da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 38, ECHR 2006 ‑ I). 55.

da Silva and   Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, §§ 38 and 39, ECHR   2006 ‑ I) and Darren Omoregie and Others v.

previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues

time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host state would from the outset be precarious (see Rodrigues

le cas ce n’est que dans des circonstances particulièrement exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n’ayant pas la nationalité de l’Etat hôte constitue une violation de l’article 8 ( Rodrigues

’une ou plusieurs des personnes concernées et celle de savoir s’il existe des éléments touchant au contrôle de l’immigration ou des considérations d’ordre public pesant en faveur d’une exclusion ( Rodrigues