CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 janvier 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   21 17.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AOULMI v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Aoulmi v. France (application no. 50278/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3   (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention; and a violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 7,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Rachid Aoulmi, is an Algerian national who was born in 1956 in Algeria, where he currently lives. He entered France in 1960 at the age of four. He was married to a French national from April 1989 until January 1993 and has a daughter who was born in 1983. He has been carrying the hepatitis C virus since 1994.   In December 1988 the applicant, who had previously been convicted in 1982 and 1984 of offences including burglaries, was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment for a drug offence. An order was also made for his permanent exclusion from French territory. The prison sentence was increased to four years on appeal, while the exclusion order was upheld. In addition, in 1992 the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for a further drug offence, three months for forging administrative documents and two months for breaching an exclusion order. An appeal by the applicant against the order excluding him from French territory was dismissed.   On 9 August 1999 the applicant was released from prison and was placed in administrative detention with a view to his removal from France.   On 11 August 1999 the prefect made an order for the applicant’s deportation to Algeria. On the same day Mr Aoulmi applied to the European Court of Human Rights, which immediately informed the French Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it would be desirable, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to refrain from deporting the applicant to Algeria until it had given its decision. However, Mr Aoulmi was put on a boat bound for Algeria on 19 August 1999.   The deportation order was set aside by the Lyons Administrative Court on 13 December 2000.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 August 1999 and declared admissible on 10 May 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that his removal to Algeria would put him at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of his state of health and his background as a member of a harki family (Algerians loyal to the French during the Algerian War of Independence). He also contended under Article 8 that his removal to Algeria would infringe his right to respect for family life as he had no ties with that country and his entire family lived in France.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The applicant’s state of health The Court considered that the applicant had not shown that his illness could not have been treated in Algeria. The fact that treatment would be less easy to obtain there than in France, assuming that that were true, was not decisive for the purposes of Article 3. The Court further noted that, according to a medical certificate issued on 13 August 1999 by a medical officer from the département ’s Health and Social Affairs Department (DDASS), the applicant’s health was not an immediate cause for concern. The Court further noted that, according to a medical certificate issued in July 2005, the applicant’s condition had not been monitored or checked for some ten years.   Accordingly, although the Court was aware that the applicant was suffering from a serious illness, it did not find that there was a sufficiently real risk that his removal to Algeria in those circumstances would be incompatible with Article 3.   Risks faced in Algeria The Court reiterated that the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of the unsettled situation in a particular country was not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of Article 3, particularly as political changes were now under way in Algeria and there was reason to hope that they would result in an improvement of the current situation. The Court therefore held that the enforcement of the order for the applicant’s deportation to Algeria had not breached Article 3.   Article 8 The issue for the Court to assess was whether the exclusion order against the applicant had struck a fair balance between the interests at stake, namely his right to respect for his family life on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime on the other hand.   The Court noted, firstly, the serious nature of the acts for which the applicant had stood trial. The exclusion order had taken into account the offences of which he had been convicted, and also his two prior convictions and the failure of all previous efforts to reintegrate him into society. It remained to be determined whether a measure as radical as deportation had been proportionate to the aim pursued, in view of the applicant’s ties with France.   In that connection, the Court observed that the applicant had come to France at the age of four and had remained there until he had been removed to Algeria. He had most of his social ties in France and retained no links with his country of origin apart from his nationality.   Although all the applicant’s family members lived in France, the Court pointed out that relations between adults did not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without evidence of further elements of dependency involving more than normal emotional ties. In that connection, the Court noted, firstly, that the applicant had been married to a French national. However, the exclusion order had already been made against him by the time of his marriage, so that he could not have failed to realise that he was in a relatively precarious position. By the time his application to have the exclusion order set aside had been dismissed, his marriage had already been dissolved for more than three years.   The Court further noted that the applicant had indicated only that he had “special ties” with his daughter, who had been 16 years old at the time of his removal, without specifying the nature of such ties or the role he might have played in her life.   In those circumstances, despite the strength of the applicant’s ties with France, the Court found that the French courts had been legitimately entitled to consider that ordering his permanent exclusion from French territory had been necessary for the prevention of disorder   or crime. The Court therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 8.     Article 34   The Court reiterated that the obligation not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of petition precluded any interference with the right of the individual effectively to present and pursue his or her complaint before it.   In the present case the applicant’s removal to Algeria had hampered the examination of his complaints and had ultimately prevented the Court from affording him the necessary protection from any potential violations of the Convention. As a result, the applicant had been hindered in the effective exercise of his right of individual petition as set forth in Article 34.   Accordingly, having regard to the evidence before it, the Court concluded that by not complying with the interim measures indicated under Rule 39, France had failed to honour its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in the applicant’s case.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.