CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. October 1997 Boujlifa v. France - 25404/94 Judgment 21.10.1997 Article 8 Expulsion Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Expulsion, following two criminal convictions, of a Moroccan who arrived in France at age of 5 and whose parents and eight brothers and sisters are lawfully resident in France: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] A.   Article 8, paragraph 1 Question whether applicant had a private and family life within meaning of Article 8 of Convention was to be considered in light of position on date of deportation order – applicant was living in France, although he was not entitled to claim at that time to be involved in a relationship with his French cohabitant, and seemed to have remained in touch with his family. Order for applicant’s deportation amounted to interference with his right to respect for his private and family life. B.   Article 8, paragraph 2 1.   “In accordance with the law” Not contested. 2.   Legitimate aim Prevention of disorder or crime. 3.   “Necessary in a democratic society” Obligation for Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right to control entry and residence of aliens – included power to deport aliens convicted of criminal offences. Applicant’s ties with France: had arrived there at age of 5 and had lived there since 1967, apart from one period of fifteen months – had received his education there, had worked there for a brief period and his parents and eight brothers and sisters lived there. On other hand, he had never shown any desire to acquire French nationality. Great importance attached to offences committed: by their seriousness and severity of penalties they attracted, they constituted particularly serious violation of security of persons and property and of public order. In instant case requirements of public order outweighed personal considerations which had prompted the application. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three).   © 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