CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. July 1995 Nasri v. France - 19465/92 Judgment 13.7.1995 Article 8 Expulsion Article 8-1 Respect for family life Deportation order imposed on an Algerian deaf-mute, who had come to France with his family at the age of four: Expulsion would constitute a violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Paragraph 1 Execution of deportation order would amount to interference by the public authorities with the exercise of applicant's right to respect B.   Paragraph 2 1.   "In accordance with the law" Not contested that the provisions of national legislation provided a legal basis for the interference. 2.   Legitimate aim Prevention of disorder and prevention of crime. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Recapitulation of case-law: Contracting States' duty to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right to control entry and residence of aliens and notably to order expulsion of aliens convicted of criminal offences. Deportation in question ordered following applicant's conviction for gang-rape — other aspects had to be taken into account: recognition by Assize Court that there had been extenuating circumstances and that applicant had not been the instigator of offence; applicant sentenced to term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, part of which had been suspended, and probation; had not re-offended as regards rape. Applicant's handicap: deaf-mute from birth, condition aggravated by illiteracy which was result of largely inadequate schooling — special importance of family for such a person, not only in terms of providing a home, but also because it could help to prevent him from lapsing into a life of crime — applicant had never severed links with his parents who came to France in 1965 and had never left it since — inability to understand Arabic. In the light of this accumulation of special circumstances, there was a lack of proportion between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation, if the deportation order were to be executed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION In view of the finding of a violation of Article 8, unnecessary to examine complaint. Conclusion : unnecessary to examine complaint (seven votes to two). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Just satisfaction No claim for compensation or reimbursement of costs and expenses — unnecessary for the Court to consider this matter of its own motion. B.   Annulment of the deportation order Court was not empowered to require the respondent State to accede to the applicant's request. Conclusion : unnecessary to apply Article 50 (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes