CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 février 1991

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 1991 Moustaquim v. Belgium - 12313/86 Judgment 18.2.1991 Article 8 Expulsion Alien who had arrived in country at very early age deported and thereby separated from close relatives: 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.] I.   WHETHER CASE HAD BECOME DEVOID OF PURPOSE Case not devoid of purpose – deportation order suspended for trial period of two years by royal order but no reparation made thereby for its consequences, which applicant had suffered for more than five years. II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Paragraph 1 Applicant had been living in country in which his parents, brothers and sisters resided and had never broken off relations with them – deportation had resulted in his being separated from them, although he had tried to remain in touch by correspondence – there had accordingly been interference by public authority with right to respect for family life. B.   Paragraph 2 1.   "In accordance with the law" Legal basis of interference: not disputed – provisions of national legislation. 2.   Legitimate aim Prevention of disorder. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Court in no way underestimated Contracting States' concern to maintain public order, in particular in exercising their right, as a matter of well–established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. Applicant's alleged offences: all went back to when he had been an adolescent – proceedings had been brought in the criminal courts in respect of only some of them, which had been spread over a fairly short period – relatively long interval between latest offence of which he had been convicted and deportation. At time of deportation order, all the applicant's close relatives were living in Belgium; one of the older children in his family had acquired Belgian nationality and the three youngest had been born in Belgium – applicant had arrived in country at very early age, had lived there for about twenty years with his family or not far away from them, had returned to country of origin only twice and had received all his schooling in French. His family life had accordingly been seriously disrupted – disproportion between means employed and legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). Unnecessary to consider whether deportation had also been breach of applicant's right to respect for his private life. III.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8 Applicant's position not comparable to that of juvenile delinquents (i)   who had Belgian nationality, as they had right of abode in own country and could not be expelled; (ii)   who had nationality of another of the member States of the European Communities, as there was objective and reasonable justification for their preferential treatment, since Belgium belonged, together with those States, to a special legal order. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLES 3 AND 7 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints not reiterated before the Court. Conclusion : unnecessary to rule on complaints under these Articles (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: no causal link between breach found by Court and alleged damage. Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses Proceedings before Advisory Board on Aliens and Conseil d’État : reimbursement. Proceedings before Convention institutions: partial reimbursement, after deduction of sums received in legal aid. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum (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