CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB51B2C91 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0072bc } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 18 January 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6325/15 Z against Switzerland lodged on 2 February 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant is a Spanish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Gandia, Spain. He is represented before the Court by Mr B.   Muralt, a lawyer practising in Solothurn. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The applicant was born in 1968 in Switzerland and lived there until March 2015. In 1991 his son was born and in 2003 he married a Belarussian national, who has been working and living in Switzerland since 2002. 4.     His mother, who had lived in Switzerland, returned to Spain in 2001. One of the applicant’s brothers and his sister are still living in Switzerland. 5.     In 2009 the applicant was convicted for inter alia rape and sexual conduct with a minor. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. The applicant served six months in the form of electronic monitoring (house arrest) and the remaining 24 months were suspended on parole. 6.     In 2012 a penalty order was issued against the applicant for breach of secrecy or privacy through the use of an image-carrying-device as well as coercion. The criminal proceedings were discontinued in 2013, after the applicant had reached an agreement with the victim and the victim had withdrawn her criminal complaint. 7.     In January 2014 the Migration Office revoked the applicant’s permanent residence permit, expelled him and ordered the applicant to leave Switzerland before 30 April 2014. It based its decision on Articles 63 § 2, §   1 b, 62 b of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals (see paragraph 11) and the applicant’s previous criminal conviction and the discontinued criminal proceedings. 8.     In June 2014 the Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the Migration Office. It held that his conduct, resulting in his criminal conviction of 2009, constituted a grave violation of the public order and that the criminal investigation of 2012 showed a risk of reoffending. The court additionally established that there existed 45 certificates of unpaid debt in the amount of CHF 74,319.10 against the applicant. It therefore concluded that there was a strong public interest in the revocation of the applicant’s permanent residence permit. This public interest exceeded the applicant’s private interest in remaining in Switzerland, even in light of his long stay in Switzerland and the possible negative consequences of an expulsion. 9.     In January 2015 the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the reasoning of the Administrative Court and upheld the revocation of the applicant’s permanent residence permit and his expulsion from Switzerland. 10.     On 15 January the Migration Office set the 28 February 2015 as new deadline for the latest voluntary departure of the applicant from Switzerland. 11.     On 2 March 2015 the applicant left Switzerland and moved to Spain. B.     Relevant domestic law 12.     The relevant provisions of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals ( Bundesgesetz über die Ausländerinnen und Ausländer ) read as follows: Article 62 Revocation of permits and other rulings “The competent authority may revoke permits, with the exception of the permanent residence permit, and other rulings under this Act if the foreign national: a. or their representative in the permit procedure makes false statements or conceals material facts; b. has been given a long custodial sentence or has been made subject to a criminal measure in terms of Article 64 or Article 61 of the Criminal Code 1 ; c. has seriously or repeatedly violated or represents a threat to public security and order in Switzerland or abroad or represents a threat to internal or external security; d. fails to fulfil an obligation linked to the decision; e. or a person they must care for is dependent on social assistance.” Article 63 Revocation of the permanent residence permit “(1) The permanent residence permit may be revoked only if: a. the requirements of Article 62 letter a or b are fulfilled; b. the foreign national has seriously violated or represents a threat to public security and order in Switzerland or abroad or represents a threat to internal or external security; c. the foreign national or a person they must care for is dependent permanently and to a large extent on social assistance. (2) The permanent residence permit of foreign nationals who have resided in Switzerland in a law-abiding manner for an uninterrupted period of more than 15 years may be revoked only on the grounds set out in paragraph 1 letter b and Article 62 letter b.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the revocation of his permanent residence permit and his expulsion from Switzerland violated his right to respect for private and family life. QUESTION 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?