CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 janvier 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 } .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 } .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 January 1997 Bouchelkia v. France - 23078/93 Judgment 29.1.1997 Article 8 Expulsion Deportation, following criminal conviction for rape, of an Algerian who came to France at age of 2 and whose mother and nine brothers and sisters were lawfully resident in France; illegal return to France, formal declaration of paternity of child of a Frenchwoman whom he married: 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 the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention to be considered at time deportation order was made - he was at that point single and had no children as he had only started his own family after the deportation order was made - he was still living with his original family in France where he had lived since the age of 2 and where he had his main private and family ties. Applicant's deportation in 1990 amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life. B.   Article 8, paragraph 2 1.   "In accordance with law" Not disputed. 2.   Legitimate aim Prevention of disorder or crime. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Duty of Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right to control entry and residence of aliens and the situation of second-generation migrants - for that purpose entitled to order expulsion of such persons convicted of criminal offences. Applicant, who was 20 years old, single and had no children when the deportation order was executed, had maintained links at material time with his country of origin of which he was a national and where close relations of his lived. Great importance attached to nature of offence which had given rise to deportation order - authorities could legitimately have considered that applicant's deportation was necessary for prevention of disorder or crime - fact that, after the deportation order was made and while he was still an illegal immigrant, he had built up a new family life did not justify finding, a posteriori , that deportation order made and executed in 1990 had not been necessary. Conclusion : no violation (eight 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