CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 11 juin 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFEBEADFA { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sAB71F61C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt } .s9DBFFD93 { width:32.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2A0B8845 { width:27.06pt; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8B126725 { width:21.5pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } .s34FA7803 { font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 1173e réunion – 11-12 juin 2013   Annexe 3 (Point H46-1)   Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)117 Nunez contre Norvège Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n° 55597/09, arrêt du 28 juin 2011, définitif le 28 septembre 2011)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 juin 2013, lors de la 1173e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -   de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -   de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document DH-DD(2013)433) ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Application Nunez against Norway (No. 55597/09)   Consolidated action report on the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 28 June 2011 (Anglais seulement)   Reference is made to Norway's action report of 28 February 2012, and subsequent update of 10   August   2012. The Committee of Ministers has requested a consolidated report.   1.   Violation of the Convention determined by the Court   The European Court of Human Rights found that there would be a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the event of the applicant’s expulsion from Norway. The applicant had been expelled with a two year re-entry band, on the grounds of serious breaches of the Norwegian Immigration Act. She had two daughters, born in 2002 and 2003 respectively. In paragraph 84 of the judgment, the Court stated that   Having regard to all of the above considerations, notably the children's long lasting and close bonds to their mother, the decision in the custody proceedings, the disruption and stress that the children had already experienced and the long period that elapsed before the immigration authorities took their decision to order the applicant's expulsion with a re-entry ban, the Court is not convinced in the concrete and exceptional circumstances of the case that sufficient weight was attached to the best interests of the children for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention.   The applicant was not awarded just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.   2.   Individual measures   Following the Court’s Rule 39 decision, the Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board suspended the applicant's obligation to leave Norway. This interim measure was introduced on 30 October 2009.   Following the Court's final decision, the Immigration Appeals Board reversed its expulsion decision on 17   November 2011.   An application for family reunification with the applicant's children was lodged on 4 October 2011. The application was denied by the Immigration Directorate on 1 January 2012, on the grounds that the applicant had not documented her identity. The applicant was requested, in case of appeal, to present identification documents issued to her stated identity.   The decision was appealed on 7 February 2012. The applicant presented a passport as requested.     On 16 June 2012, the Immigration Directorate reversed its former decision. Though the requirements for family reunification were not met, the Directorate granted the applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds (Section 38 of the Immigration Act).   The permit is valid for three years. It may be renewed if the requirements are met at the time of application for renewal. In their assessment the Norwegian authorities will take due account of their obligations under Article 8 of the Convention and of the considerations that led the Court to the finding of a violation in the instant case.   3.   General measures   3.1   Publication   A summary of the judgment in Norwegian, with a link to the original judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, was published on the Internet site Lovdata 28 June 2011. [1]   The Norwegian summaries are written by the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights at the University of Oslo. The Lovdata web site is the principal Internet source for legal information in Norway, and is widely used by all who practice the law profession, including lawyers, civil servants and judges.   3.2   New instructions regarding expulsion cases affecting children   On 4 November 2011, the Ministry of Justice issued instructions [2] to the Immigration Directorate regarding expulsion cases affecting children. The instructions address the issues highlighted in the Nunez judgment, as well as other developments in legislation and jurisprudence, and are meant to ensure that Norwegian practices are in accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence.   The Directorate is instructed, specifically, that unreasonably prolonged case processing shall be attached due weight in disfavour of expulsion, as shall a child's particularly strong ties to the parent being considered expelled. Furthermore, the instructions state that earlier disruption and hardship in a child's family life may be a relevant factor in the assessment.   In addition, the Ministry outlines more general principles and considerations to be taken into account in expulsion cases affecting children. Emphasis is given to, e.g. the importance of a thorough assessment of the particular circumstances of each case, and the established principle that the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation. The Ministry has stated that the instructions are not expected to result in major changes in Norwegian expulsion practices.   4.   Conclusion   In the light of the above, the Norwegian Government considers Norway's obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention, fulfilled.     Yours sincerely,     Nina E. D. Mørk (p.p.) Acting Deputy Director General   Sigurd Bordvik Adviser     [1] http://websir.lovdata.no/cgi-lex/wiftzsok?bas=emdn&emne1=nunez&sok=fast [2] GI-2011-014, http://www.udiregelverk.no/default.aspx?path=%7BCB4641E6-1F13-4B54-9E39-0893AF2F6CB9%7D . The instructions have not been translated into English.