CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 février 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. February 1996 Gül v. Switzerland - 23218/94 Judgment 19.2.1996 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Refusal by Swiss authorities to permit minor son of Turkish national who held residence permit issued on humanitarian grounds to join him in Switzerland: no 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.] From moment of a child's birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to "family life" - subsequent events cannot break this save in exceptional circumstances. Swiss authorities applied to by applicant for authorisation to bring his son - frequent visits to Turkey by applicant - bond of "family life" not broken. Essential object of Article 8 to protect individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities - fair balance to be struck between competing interests of individual and community as a whole - State enjoys certain margin of appreciation. Extent of State's obligation to admit relatives of immigrants to its territory depends on circumstances of persons involved and the general interest - right of States to control entry of non-nationals into their territory - where immigration is concerned, Article 8 cannot be interpreted so as to impose general obligation for State to respect choice by married couples of their place of matrimonial residence and to authorise family reunion in its territory - in order to establish scope of State's obligations, facts of case must be considered. In instant case, frequent visits by applicant to Turkey - original reasons for his application for political asylum no longer valid - possible for applicant to receive his ordinary invalidity pension if he returned to his country - possible for his wife to obtain suitable medical treatment in Turkey - no permanent right of abode in Switzerland enjoyed by applicant and wife - no obstacles to development of family life in Turkey, where applicant's son has always lived - applicant's family's situation very difficult from human point of view, but no interference by Switzerland in applicant's family life. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two).   © 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