CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 avril 2023

.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 } Published on 2 May 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30638/22 Liban Jamah GUTAALE against the Netherlands lodged on 17 June 2022 communicated on 12 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision to revoke the applicant’s residence permit. The applicant is a Somalian national who entered the Netherlands in 1992 at the age of 18 and was granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. In 2006 the applicant married to a Somalian woman who joined him in the Netherlands. This marriage lasted until 2014. They have four children, born between 2011 and 2016, who all have the Somalian nationality. On a number of dates between 1997 and 2017 the applicant was convicted of, among other offences, extortion, threat of gross maltreatment, attempted homicide, shoplifting and other kinds of theft, and sentenced to several terms of imprisonment of which the total non ‑ suspended part amounted to more than 14 months. The Deputy Minister of Justice and Security, relying on this criminal record, revoked the applicant’s residence permit on the basis of section 3.86 of the Aliens Decree ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ), as in force since 1   July 2012, because he considered that the applicant posed a threat to public order. He noted that since 2013 there had been a series of convictions, mainly involving property crimes, which cause damage and harm to society and contribute to general feelings of insecurity. Previously imposed sentences for repeatedly committed criminal offences, including attempted homicide and extortion, had not prevented the applicant from committing criminal offences again. In his view, the revocation decision did not violate the applicant’s right to respect for his family and private life under Article 8 of the Convention 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. The applicant complains of an unjustified interference with his rights under Article 8, arguing, firstly, that the revocation was not foreseeable and thus not in accordance with the law. He refers in this respect to the judgment of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State of 1 July 2020, concerning a different case, in which it adjusted its interpretation of section 3.86 of the Aliens Decree. According to the applicant this new interpretation should have led to the conclusion that the Deputy Minister could not revoke his residence permit. The applicant further argues that the revocation decision was not proportionate noting, among other things, that he has resided in the Netherlands since 1992, he has not committed any serious offence after 1998 and that he has four young children who all live in the Netherlands. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the revocation of the applicant’s residence permit constitute a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? Was the revocation decision in accordance with the law, as interpreted by the domestic courts, and necessary in a democratic society?