CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mars 1992

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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 March 1992 Beldjoudi v. France - 12083/86 Judgment 26.3.1992 Article 8 Expulsion Article 8-1 Respect for family life Deportation order against an Algerian, born in France of parents who were then French, and married to a Frenchwoman: deportation would constitute a 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.] I.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Paragraph 1 Enforcement of the deportation order: would constitute an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicants' right to respect for their family life. B.   Paragraph 2 1.   "In accordance with the law" Legal basis of the interference: not disputed that it was based on provisions of national legislation. 2.   Legitimate aim Prevention of disorder and prevention of crime. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Recognition by the Court of the duty of Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. Mr. Beldjoudi's criminal record appeared much worse than Mr.   Moustaquim's, hence necessary to examine whether other circumstances of the case enough to compensate for this important fact. Interference in question primarily affected the family life of the applicants as spouses, having regard to their age and the fact that they had no children, and notwithstanding the periods of imprisonment. Mr. Beldjoudi born in France of parents who were then French, and had French nationality until 1 January 1963. Took steps to recover French nationality, a year after his conviction but over nine years before the adoption of the deportation order. Married a Frenchwoman and his close relatives all had French nationality for some time and had been resident in France for several decades. Had spent his whole life in France and appeared not to have any links with Algeria apart from nationality. Mrs. Beldjoudi, born in France of French parents, had always lived there and had French nationality. For her to follow her husband after his deportation would mean settling abroad, presumably in Algeria, which could cause her great difficulties in adapting and there could be real practical or even legal obstacles. Measure taken hence not proportionate to legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation, in the event of the decision to deport being implemented (seven votes to two). No need to examine whether the deportation would also infringe the applicants' right to respect for their private life. II.   ARTICLE 14 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION In view of the finding of a violation of Article 8, no need to consider this complaint. Conclusion : no need to rule on the complaint (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLES 3, 9 AND 12 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints not reiterated before the Court. Conclusion : no need to examine them of the Court's own motion (eight votes to one). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: non-pecuniary damage sufficiently compensated by the judgment. B.   Costs and expenses before the Convention institutions: reimbursement on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay the applicants a specified sum for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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