Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 25087/06, 24 juin 2008, Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer, précité, § 39, Arvelo Aponte, précité, 57-58, et Butt, précité, § 78).

Switzerland , 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ I; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006 ‑ I).

En vertu de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme ( Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c.

  Suisse , 19 février 1996, § 38, Recueil 1996-I   ; Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas , n o 50435/99, § 39, CEDH 2006 ‑ I). 54.

Switzerland , 54273/00, 2   August 2001, Information Note 33 ; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , 50435/99, 31   January 2006, Information Note 82 ; Z. and T. v. the United

Switzerland , judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, pp. 174-75, § 38; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v.   the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006 ‑ I).

Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer , cited above, § 43). 52.

Switzerland , judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, pp. 174-75, § 38, and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006 ‑ I).

living in the country of origin of the alien concerned and whether there are factors of immigration control or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

Switzerland , 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ I, and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99 , § 39, ECHR 2006 ‑ I).

personnes concernées et celle de savoir s'il existe des éléments touchant au contrôle de l'immigration ou des considérations d'ordre public pesant en faveur d'une exclusion (Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer

Switzerland , judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, pp. 174-175, § 38; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, §§   38-39, 31 January

In this essential matter the present case was distinguishable not only from Nunez (cited above) but also from Rodrigues   da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, §§   42 and

The Board considered in detail the first applicant’s arguments based on Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v.

According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ( Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands [no.

ruling of 13 November 2013, held as follows, in so far as relevant: “2.3     From the case-law of the [European Court of Human Rights] – inter alia , the judgments in Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

Royaume-Uni , 28   mai 1985, § 68, série A n o 94, Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c.   Pays-Bas , n o 50435/99, § 39, CEDH 2006 ‑ I, Darren Omoregie et autres c.

personnes concernées et celle de savoir s’il existe des éléments touchant au contrôle de l’immigration ou des considérations d’ordre public pesant en faveur d’une exclusion ( Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer

  174-75, § 38, and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006 ‑ I).