CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juillet 2004

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 66 July 2004 Najafi v. Sweden (dec.) - 28570/03 Decision 6.7.2004 [Section IV] Article 8 Expulsion Deportation to Iran following conviction for an aggravated narcotics offence: inadmissible The applicant, who is an Iranian national, entered Sweden for the first time in 1977. He unsuccessfully applied for a residence permit on several occasions. During the following ten years he spent most of his time in Iran but also resided in Sweden at intervals (with a temporary residence permit for two periods but at other times illegally). The applicant married a Swedish citizen in 1984, and on that basis was granted a permanent residence permit in 1988. Two sons were born from his relationship with his wife, from whom he was subsequently divorced. In 1997, the applicant was convicted of an aggravated narcotics offence (attempted importation of two kilos of heroin). He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and expulsion from Sweden with a life-long ban on returning there. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. Whilst the applicant was serving the prison sentence, his children visited him on a total of 36 occasions. The applicant filed several petitions for the revocation of the expulsion order, claiming it would be detrimental to his children, the youngest of whom was already experiencing psychological difficulties. He was nevertheless deported to Iran in February 2004. Inadmissible under Article 8: There was no doubt that expulsion would have serious implications for the applicant’s family life. However, as the applicant had been convicted of an aggravated narcotics offence, and prior to that of three other criminal offences, such implications for his family life had to be balanced against other relevant interests, namely public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. The Swedish authorities had not failed, within their margin of appreciation, to strike a fair balance, and the expulsion order had thus been justified: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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