CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 septembre 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199 August-September 2016 Khan v. Germany (striking out) [GC] - 38030/12 Judgment 21.9.2016 [GC] Article 37 Article 37-1 Striking out applications Assurance that the applicant would not be expelled on the basis of the expulsion order which was the subject of the application: struck out Facts – The applicant moved from Pakistan to Germany in 1991 with her husband. Three years later her son was born. She and her husband divorced. The applicant worked as a cleaner in different companies and obtained a permanent residence permit in Germany in 2001. In 2005 she committed manslaughter in a state of acute psychosis. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia and confined to a psychiatric hospital. In 2009 her expulsion was ordered as she was found to pose a danger to public safety. Her mental health subsequently improved and she was granted days of leave and allowed to work full-time in the hospital laundry. The applicant lodged appeals on the grounds that her expulsion would interfere with her right to respect for her family life with her son and that her specific circumstances had not sufficiently been taken into account. The domestic courts found that, in addition to a risk of reoffending, the applicant was not integrated into German society since she spoke no German and basic medical care for psychiatric patients was available in big cities in Pakistan. Following a recommendation in a medical report, she was released on probation. She continued to work, showed balanced behaviour and was in regular contact with her son. In a judgment of 23 April 2015 (see Information Note   184 ), a Chamber of the Court found, by six votes to one, that the applicant’s deportation would not constitute a violation of Article   8 of the Convention. In particular, the Court did not find that the German authorities had overstepped their margin of appreciation when weighing the impact on the applicant’s private life against the danger she posed to public safety. On 14 September 2015 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request. On 9   February 2016 the Government requested that the Court strike the application out of its list of cases. Law – Article 37: The Court noted that the German Government had given an assurance that the applicant would not be expelled on the basis of the expulsion order which was the subject of her application. The Government had further undertaken to ensure that any further decision to expel the applicant would be taken only after she had received a thorough medical examination and would take into account the time that had passed since the 2009 expulsion order. The Court had no reason to doubt the validity of the assurances and their binding effect. Furthermore, the applicant had been granted tolerated residence status. The Court noted that, should the German authorities issue a new expulsion order, the applicant would have remedies available under domestic law for challenging the order. Moreover, she would have the opportunity, if necessary, to lodge a fresh application with the Court. As such, the Court concluded that the applicant faced no risk of being expelled at that time or in the foreseeable future and found that there were no special circumstances requiring the continued examination of the application. In view of the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the Convention, the Court considered that it was not justified to continue the examination of the application. Conclusion : struck out (sixteen votes to one).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes