CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 3 May 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57766/19 Farid LOUKILI against the Netherlands lodged on 30 October 2019 communicated on 13 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision to revoke the applicant’s residence permit and to impose a ten-year entry ban on him. The applicant is a Moroccan national, born in 1978. He was a legal resident in the Netherlands from January 1982 until 2017, when the impugned decision had been made. The applicant has two children, born in 2008 and 2014. The applicant is not together with the mother of the children anymore. She has one more child, born in 2002 from a previous relationship. The applicant submits that he shares responsibilities as to the upbringing of all three of the children with her. On a number of dates between 2004 and 2017 the applicant was convicted of several (drug-related) criminal offences and sentenced to inter alia non ‑ suspended terms of imprisonment of in total 16 months. The Deputy Minister of Justice and Security, relying on the applicant’s criminal record, made the impugned decision because he considered that the applicant posed a threat to public order. In his view, the decision did not violate the applicant’s right to respect for his family life under Article 8 because the interests of the community as a whole outweighed the personal interests of the applicant. The Deputy Minister’s decision was upheld by the courts on appeal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, have the domestic courts, when conducting the Article   8 proportionality assessment, carefully examined the facts, applied the human rights standards consistently with the Convention and the Court’s case ‑ law, and adequately balanced the applicant’s personal interests against the general public interest ( Ndidi v. United Kingdom , no. 41215/14,   §   76, 14   September 2017)?