CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 mars 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                           AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 13113/87                       by Mehmet POLAT                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 March 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 3 July 1987 by Mehmet POLAT against the Netherlands and registered on 27 July 1987 under file No. 13113/87;           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 applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1942 and at present residing in Gaziantep, Turkey.   He is represented, in the proceedings before the Commission, by Mr.   J.F. Sabaroedin, a lawyer practising in Oldenzaal, the Netherlands.           The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:           On 6 February 1969 the applicant came to the Netherlands with his wife and two children.   In the Netherlands two other children were born, in 1971 and 1973 respectively.           On 21 June 1974 the applicant was granted a permanent residence permit.           On 7 October 1979 the applicant travelled from the Netherlands to the Federal Republic of Germany.   There he was arrested on suspicion of heroin trading.   On 10 July 1980 he was convicted by the Hamburg Regional Court (Landgericht) and sentenced to 51/2 years' imprisonment for heroin trading under aggravating circumstances and tax fraud.   In December 1982 he was released from prison for good behaviour.           On 2 December 1982 the Deputy Minister (Staatssecretaris) of Justice decided to withdraw   the applicant's permanent residence permit, in accordance with Section 14 para. 1(c) of the Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet).   The Deputy Minister considered this decision justified, in view of the seriousness of the crime committed.           His permanent residence permit having been withdrawn, the applicant was deported, upon his release in December 1982, from Germany to Turkey.   However, he received permission to return temporarily to the Netherlands in connection with the proceedings regarding the withdrawal of his permanent residence permit.           By letter of 21 December 1982 the applicant requested the Deputy Minister for a revision of her decision.           By decision of 30 September 1983 the Deputy Minister rejected the request.           On 6 October 1983 the applicant appealed to the Judicial Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State).   Since this appeal had no suspensive effect, he instituted summary proceedings (kort geding) with the President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Almelo, requesting a prohibition to deport him from the Netherlands until the Council of State had decided on his appeal.   On 19 October 1983 the President rejected the request.           By decision of 17 January 1984 the Deputy Minister of Justice declared the applicant an undesirable alien (ongewenste vreemdeling). On 28 February 1984 the applicant requested the Deputy Minister for a revision of this decision.   On 22 January 1985 the Deputy Minister rejected the request.   By letter of 13 February 1985 the applicant appealed to the Judicial Division of the Council of State.           By decision of 9 January 1987 the Judicial Division of the Council of State rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision to withdraw his permanent residence permit.   It considered, inter alia, that the applicant had seriously infringed public order.     It held that the crime for which the applicant had been convicted in the Federal Republic of Germany, was also considered to be serious in the Netherlands, and that part of the facts that had been established by the German judge had taken place in the Netherlands.           The Council found that, in view of the seriousness of the infringement on the public order, the personal interests of the applicant did not require the State to refrain from withdrawing the permanent residence permit.           By decision of the same date the Judicial Division of the Council of State rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision to declare him an undesirable alien.           The applicant's wife and children still live in the Netherlands.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that because of the withdrawal of his permanent residence permit his family life is endangered.   He points out that he has been living with his family in the Netherlands since 1969, that they are completely acclimatized in that country, and that in particular his children, two of whom were born in the Netherlands, are very attached to the Dutch society.   He invokes Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention.           The applicant submits that, in the present case, the interference with his right under Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention is not "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.   THE LAW           The applicant complains that because of the withdrawal of his permanent residence permit his family life is endangered.   He invokes Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.           The Commission recalls that according to its established case-law the Convention does not guarantee, as such, any right for an alien to enter or reside in a specific country (cf. for example, No. 4403/70, Dec. 10.10.70, Collection 36 p. 92; No. 5269/74, Dec. 8.2.72, Collection 39 p. 104) or not to be expelled from a particular country (cf. for example, No. 4314/69, Dec. 2.2.70, Collection 32 p. 96). However, the Commission has also stated that expulsion from a country in which close members of the family of the person concerned are living may be contrary to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (cf. for example, No. 6357/73, Dec. 8.10.74, D.R. 1   p. 77; No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219).           In the present case the Commission notes that the withdrawal of the applicant's permanent residence permit has resulted in his separation from his wife and children and that it would involve considerable hardship, in particular for the children, if they were to follow the applicant to Turkey.   Consequently, the withdrawal of the permanent residence permit constituted an interference with his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.             The Commission recalls, however, that under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention there may be an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the right to respect for family life, if such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and   crime, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.           The withdrawal of the applicant's permanent residence permit was decided in accordance with Section 14 para. 1(c) of the Aliens Act.   Given the nature and the seriousness of the drugs offences for which the applicant was convicted in Germany and which had been partially committed in the Netherlands, the Commission is satisfied that the interference complained of was justified as a measure necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime (No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219; No. 9203/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 239).           It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For this reason, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission             (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)