CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juin 2011

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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. 146 November 2011 De Souza Ribeiro v. France (referral) - 22689/07 Judgment 30.6.2011 [Section V] Article 13 Effective remedy Lack of suspensive effect of remedy for challenging a deportation order: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicant was a Brazilian national. Relying on Articles   8 and   13 of the Convention, he complained that he had been deported to Brazil and separated from his family and that he had had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the removal order against him before it was executed. In a judgment of 30 June 2011 a Chamber of the Court unanimously found the complaint under Article   8 inadmissible for lack of victim status, because the administrative court had acknowledged the unlawful nature of the measure that had resulted in the applicant being deported to Brazil, and the applicant had subsequently been able to return to France, where he had eventually been issued with a renewable residence permit. As to the non-suspensive effect of the remedy for challenging the lawfulness of the removal order, in view of the wide margin of appreciation the States enjoyed in such matters, the Court found by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   8 on the grounds that the consequences of interference with the rights guaranteed under Article   8 were in principle reversible, as demonstrated in this case, where the family ties had not been lastingly broken following the applicant’s expulsion as he had managed to return to France some time later. On 28 November 2011 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   © 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