CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 juillet 2002

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 44 July 2002 Taskin v. Germany - 56132/00 Judgment 23.7.2002 [Section III] Article 8 Expulsion Granting of residence permit on humanitarian grounds: struck out Facts: The applicant, a Turkish national, came to Germany in 1988, under the arrangements governing family reunion, to join her husband, who had been living there since 1981 and held a permanent residence permit. The applicant was granted several temporary residence permits. She has two children, born in Germany in 1989 and 1992, who hold residence permits valid until 2015. In 1999, the authorities refused to extend the applicant’s residence permit pursuant to a provision of the Aliens Act under which a residence permit for family reunion may only be granted if the arriving family member can be supported by the foreign national on the basis of his or her own gainful employment, his or her own assets or other own resources. The applicant’s husband has been unemployed since 1998 and state financial assistance, such as the unemployment benefit which he receives, cannot be regarded as constituting such means of support; neither may the financial support which the applicant receives from the public authorities for day-to-day expenses and housing. The administrative court dismissed the application for a stay of execution on the applicant’s expulsion. It noted in particular that the decisive factor was that neither the applicant herself nor her husband were in a position to meet the family’s needs through their own resources without relying on government aid. It further noted that there was no infringement of the right to protection of family life because it would be conceivable for the applicant and her husband to return to Turkey. In February 2002, the administrative court of appeal upheld this decision. The Aliens Department announced that the applicant would be expelled on 8 March 2000. On 15   March 2000, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal. In September 1999, the applicant had been treated in a medical centre and the final medical report referred to a depressive state and a motor disorder. Following a fire in her home in April 2000, the applicant was seriously injured and was treated in a number of different clinics. Since 4   May   2001 she has lived in a convalescent home. She is currently receiving intensive medical care and is under guardianship. The applicant’s two children left Germany in May   2000 to go and live with their grandmother in Turkey. Under a partial friendly settlement reached before the Saarland Administrative Court in February 2002, the Saarbrücken metropolitan district council undertook to grant the applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.   Law : In her present state of health, the applicant was no longer able to bring up her children, who were now living in Turkey, and she could not be said to have a family life with her husband in Germany. Furthermore, the threat of expulsion had been removed following the undertaking given in February 2002 by the Saarbrücken metropolitan district council, which, on the applicant’s own admission, had settled the dispute relating to her residence in Germany. The purpose of the application had been above all to prevent her expulsion to Turkey so that she would not be separated from her husband and children. The applicant was continuing with her proceedings before the German courts to secure a residence permit so that she could resume her family life with her children in Germany. However, even if the applicant’s health permitted her to return to Turkey, there would be nothing to prevent her from continuing her family life with her children in Turkey, where they had been living for two years.   Under these circumstances, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Conclusion : struck out (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