CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 114 December 2008 Gulijev v. Lithuania - 10425/03 Judgment 16.12.2008 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Expulsion on the basis of a “secret” report of the State Security Department which was not disclosed to the applicant: violation   Facts : In 2001 the applicant, an Azerbaijani citizen, married his partner, a Lithuanian national with whom he already had a five-year old daughter, and obtained a temporary residence permit to live in Lithuania. His request for the renewal of his residence permit was rejected by the Migration Department on the basis of a State Security Department's “secret” file stating that he posed a “threat to national security and public order”. The applicant appealed to the courts claiming that he had lived in Lithuania since 1989, that he owned property there and had a family and that his wife was expecting another child. The Administrative Court dismissed his appeal relying in particular on the classified State Security Department report (the contents of which were not disclosed to the applicant) and its conclusion that the applicant's continued presence in Lithuania endangered national security and public order. His further appeals were to no avail. In October 2002 the authorities made an attempt to deport the applicant to Azerbaijan and prohibited him from entering Lithuania until 2099. However, he went into hiding before eventually being deported in November 2003. Law : The Government's assertion that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life since the entire family could have moved to Azerbaijan was dismissed because his wife was a Lithuanian national with strong social and cultural links to Lithuania and both of their children had been born there. The key issue in the applicant's case was, however, whether that interference corresponded to a pressing social need. The State Security Department's conclusion in its classified report that the applicant posed a threat to national security had subsequently been relied on by the authorities as the sole ground for refusing his request for temporary residence in Lithuania, even though under domestic law factual data constituting State secrets were not to be used as evidence in administrative proceedings until they were unclassified. There was no evidence that the applicant's stay in Lithuania had posed a national threat when he was first issued with a temporary residence permit in 2001 and the Government had not provided the Court with further factual information substantiating why domestic authorities considered the applicant a threat. Although the applicant had a criminal conviction, it involved theft and not a crime related to national security. Accordingly, the applicant's deportation and prohibition from re-entering Lithuania, where his two children and wife lived, until 2099 had not been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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