CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 février 2001

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 27 February 2001 Abdouni v. France - 37838/97 Judgment 27.2.2001 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Applicant no longer at risk of expulsion: struck out Article 37 Article 37-1-b Matter resolved Applicant no longer at risk of expulsion: struck out Facts : The applicant, an Algerian national, has lived in France since he was six months old and has founded a family there with a Portuguese national. In December 1996 the Blois Criminal Court found him guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to thirty months’ imprisonment and five years’ exclusion from French territory. The Orléans Court of Appeal dismissed two applications by the applicant to have the exclusion order lifted. While the first application was still pending the Prefect of the Loir-et-Cher département , in a decision of November 1997, designated Algeria as the country to which the applicant would be sent. On an appeal by the applicant, in January 2000, the Orléans Administrative Court set that decision aside, relying, inter alia , on the applicant’s right to a normal family life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention. In April 2000 the applicant requested the Minister of the Interior to impose a compulsory residence order so that a fresh application to have the exclusion order lifted would be admissible. In his letter to the Minister, he observed that as a result of the Administrative Court’s decision he could no longer be deported to Algeria or to any other country. No action was taken on the above request. Law : To date, no steps had been taken to enforce the impugned exclusion order. Moreover, the Administrative Court’s decision, which was final, had set aside the Prefect’s decision designating Algeria as the country to which the applicant would be deported, thereby depriving the exclusion order of any legal force. As the applicant had himself noted in his letter to the Minister of the Interior, the Administrative Court’s decision meant that he could no longer be deported to Algeria or to any other country. A fresh decision to designate a country for the applicant’s deportation would infringe the principle of res judicata if the country chosen was Algeria or any other country with which the applicant’s family had no connection. In addition, various remedies and safeguards would be available to the applicant if such a decision were issued. Consequently, the matter had been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) and there was no need to continue the examination of the application. Conclusion : struck out.   © 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