it is likely to be only in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see, among others, Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

For the sixth applicant’s removal to be considered incompatible with Article 8, truly exceptional circumstances would need to be shown to exist ( Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer , cited above, § 39).

this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

whether the authorities were under a positive obligation to grant the applicant a residence permit (compare Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 105, 3 October 2014; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

host State would from the outset be precarious the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances ( Rodrigues da Silva and   Hoogkamer

where this is the case, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host state would from the outset be precarious (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

dans des circonstances particulièrement exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n’ayant pas la nationalité de l’Etat hôte constitue une violation de l’article 8 ( Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer

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

Italie , n o 31956/05, §§ 36 à 38, 4 décembre 2012, Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas , n o   50435/99, § 39, CEDH 2006 ‑ I, Meirelles c.

.; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands , no.

  58681/12, § 55, 1 o marzo 2018, e Rodrigues da Silva e Hoogkamer c. Paesi Bassi, n. 50435/99, § 41, CEDU 2006-I).

  58681/12, § 55, 1 March 2018, and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 41, ECHR 2006-I).

this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

life in the Netherlands....’ (67) In its subsequent case-law, the European Court has stuck to this approach (see for example the judgment of 31 January 2006 in the case of and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer

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

Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands [no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006-I] ..., and that of the [Administrative Jurisdiction] Division [of the Council of State] of 13   July   2009 (ECLI