CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 novembre 1996

.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 } .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. November 1996 Ahmut v. the Netherlands - 21702/93 Judgment 28.11.1996 Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Refusal by Netherlands authorities to grant a residence permit to a Moroccan minor which would have allowed him to live with his father, who has dual Moroccan and Netherlands nationality: 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.   Whether the bond between the applicants amounted to "family life" Existence of "family life" between the applicants established. B.   Whether the case concerned an "interference" with the exercise of the applicants' right to respect for their "family life" or else an alleged failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with a "positive obligation" Case viewed as one involving an allegation of failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with a positive obligation. C.   Whether the respondent State had failed to comply with a "positive obligation" Principles stated in Court's Gül judgment reiterated. Son still has strong links with the linguistic and cultural environment of his country - in addition, he still has family there - fact of the applicants' living apart result of father's conscious decision to settle in the Netherlands rather than remain in Morocco - father has retained his original Moroccan nationality - father not prevented from maintaining the degree of family life which he himself had opted for when moving to the Netherlands in the first place, nor is there any obstacle to his returning to Morocco - Article   8 does not guarantee a right to choose the most suitable place to develop family life - by sending son to boarding-school, father has him cared for in Morocco - no need to go into the question whether son's relatives living in Morocco are willing and able to take care of him - in the circumstances, no failure on the part of the respondent State to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four).   © 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