5.  The applicant, a Turkish national, was born in 1980 in Neustadt/Weinstraße (Neustadt) and lives in Speyer. He has a daughter of German nationality, born in 2009, who lives with her mother.
6.  The applicant’s parents had migrated to Germany. In 1982 the applicant witnessed the murder of his mother by his father. His father subsequently fled to Turkey, where he was sentenced to imprisonment, and where he continued to live after his release from prison.
7.  After the death of his mother, the applicant lived and grew up, together with his sister, with his grandparents in Neustadt. He was partly accommodated in a daytime clinic and attended a special needs school, from which he was expelled, without a school certificate, for physical violence against a teacher.
8.  On 25 January 1996, the competent authority of the city of Neustadt issued the applicant a permanent residence permit.
9.  Since 1996 the applicant has repeatedly been convicted of criminal offences. On 26 September 1996 the Neustadt District Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to a juvenile sentence of one year and four months, suspended on probation. On 20 July 2000 the same court convicted him on twenty counts of drug trafficking and sentenced him to a juvenile sentence of ten months, again suspended on probation. On 2 July 2001 it convicted him on twelve counts of commercial trafficking of drugs and, cumulating it with the judgment of 20 July 2000, sentenced him to juvenile custody for two years and three months. On 10 January 2002 it convicted him on two counts of attempted aggravated extortion by use of force and, cumulating it with the judgment of 2 July 2001, sentenced him to juvenile custody for four years.
10.  On 18 January 2005 the applicant was released from prison. The execution of the remainder of his sentence was suspended on probation, subject to the condition of long-term therapy for his drug addiction. The applicant subsequently participated in outpatient drug rehabilitation and a methadone programme.
11.  On an unspecified date in spring/summer 2005 a different District Court convicted the applicant of drug possession and fined him. It established that on 7 May 2005 the applicant had been found in possession of heroin. On 9 July 2007 the Neustadt District Court convicted him of several offences committed in 2005 and 2006, including violent and traffic offences, as well as drug trafficking, and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment.
12.  In June 2008 the sentence was deferred when the applicant was admitted to a specialist clinic for the purpose of receiving drug therapy. The deferment was revoked two weeks later, after the applicant had been expelled from drug therapy for disciplinary reasons. In August 2008 the sentence was again deferred and the applicant was again admitted to a specialist clinic for the purpose of receiving drug therapy. He was diagnosed with polysubstance dependence, which is simultaneous addiction to different drugs, and a dissocial personality disorder. In February 2009 the execution of the remainder of the sentence of the judgment of 9 July 2007 was suspended on probation and the applicant was released from prison. He continued therapy.
13.  On 6 November 2009 the applicant was taken into pre-trial custody. On 9 December 2010 the Frankenthal Regional Court convicted him of drug trafficking and acquisition of drugs and sentenced him to four years and three months’ imprisonment. It established that the applicant had been a heroin dealer since August 2009, in order to finance his own consumption and to earn a living. After serving the initial part of his sentence in prison, the applicant was moved to a psychiatric prison as of August 2011. He was again diagnosed with polysubstance dependence and a combined personality disorder characterised by narcissistic and dissocial symptoms.
14.  The subsequent therapy evolved slowly. In May 2014, the clinic still considered the applicant’s risk of relapse to be significant. It was only in November 2014, after the applicant had graduated from secondary school, that the clinic’s evaluation changed. On 2 December 2014 the applicant was released and the remainder of the sentence was suspended on probation.
15.  On 31 July 2002, after the conviction of 10 January 2002 (see paragraph 9 above), the competent authority of Neustadt ordered the expulsion of the applicant to Turkey. It referred, in particular, to the applicant’s prior convictions. On 22 April 2003, the competent committee on legal affairs (hereafter - “the committee”) rejected the application for administrative review of the expulsion order. On 18 October 2003 the Neustadt Administrative Court rejected the appeal. On 14 January 2005 the Rhineland-Palatinate Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Administrative Court and quashed the expulsion order. It established that the applicant could rely on a right of residence under Article 7 of the Decision No. 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 (see paragraph 30 below). He could hence only be expelled on the basis of a discretionary decision of the authority, requiring a current and concrete danger of further significant criminal offences. Against this background, the reasons provided for the justification of the expulsion order were not sufficient. In this context the Court of Appeal referred, in particular, to the fact that the applicant had at the time not yet undergone inpatient therapy, which he was willing to do. Moreover, the applicant could refer to exceptional life circumstances, in particular the violent death of his mother.
16.  In December 2007 the competent authority notified the applicant that it was willing to order expulsion to Turkey, anew. The applicant informed the authorities that he was now engaged to J., a German national, and that he was intending to undergo stationary treatment of his addiction. On 1 February 2008, the authority nevertheless ordered the expulsion of the applicant to Turkey. It referred to the numerous previous criminal offences, in particular those after 14 January 2005, and concluded that the applicant posed a sufficiently significant risk to the public.
17.  The applicant applied for administrative review of that decision. On 4 June 2009, shortly after the applicant had acknowledged paternity of the child J. expected at that time, the city committee suspended the proceedings.
18.  The applicant’s daughter was born out of wedlock on 23 September 2009. As of that day, J. exercised sole custody rights. In the following weeks, the applicant lived with his daughter and J. in a common apartment, until he was taken into pre-trial custody in November 2009 (see paragraph 13 above).
19.  On 19 September 2013, the city committee resumed the suspended proceedings and orally heard the applicant as well as J. who had, in 2011, given birth to a second child by a different father. On 24 September 2013, the committee rejected the application, maintaining that the applicant posed a current and concrete danger for public safety, as he was likely to commit further significant criminal offences. He was a chronic offender with a high potential for aggressive behaviour. Having regard to the applicant’s interests protected by Article 8 of the Convention, it found the expulsion order to be a proportionate interference.
20.  On 22 May 2014 the Neustadt Administrative Court ordered the reduction of the re-entry ban to five years and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal. It found that the expulsion order did not contravene the binding force of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 January 2005 (see paragraph 15 above) since it was essentially based on events subsequent to that judgment, in particular the judgments of the District Court of 9 July 2007 (see paragraph 11 above) and the judgment of the Regional Court of 9 December 2010 (see paragraph 13 above). The expulsion order was based on sections 55 § 1 and 56 § 1 of the Residence Act in conjunction with section 14 of Decision No. 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 (see paragraph 30 below). The authority had correctly established that the applicant posed a current and concrete danger to the basic interests of Germany, and that his expulsion was indispensable to preserve these basic interests.
21.  The Administrative Court essentially based its conclusions on the seriousness, the frequency and the drug context of the criminal offences, as well as on the expectation that the applicant would be likely to commit such offences again. In this connection, the court referred to the numerous convictions based on drug-related offences, as well as the frequent failure of therapy for his drug addiction. Not even favourable conditions, such as the drug therapy as of August 2008, the suspension of the remaining sentence, further therapy, the expected paternity and finally the birth of his child brought about substantial changes in the applicant’s life. Also, at the time, the treating clinic considered the applicant’s risk of relapse to be significant.
22.  The applicant’s relationship with his daughter was protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. It had, however, been kept from developing more intensely, due to his arrest only months after his daughter’s birth. The same was true for the relationship with his family of origin, in particular his sister. He had also failed to substantiate the actual status of the relationship with J. After initial, rather frequent visits by J. and their common daughter in prison, contact became rather infrequent after J. gave birth to a second child by a different father. The fact that the applicant was about to finish secondary school (see paragraph 14 above) did not justify a more positive prognosis. Since he lacked the necessary vocational training, his prospects of finding a job were still rather slim. The authorities had correctly taken account of the applicant’s interests, of the fact that he had been born in Germany and that he had family in Germany, in particular his daughter and his sister. Making explicit reference to Article 8 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law, the Administrative Court established that the reasons at the heart of the expulsion were sufficient to justify it, even though the expulsion might cause hardship for the daughter, who did not live with the applicant. The applicant’s interests were sufficiently taken into account by limiting the re‑entry ban and he could, moreover, apply for a further reduction of the re‑entry ban, if the relevant facts were to change.
23.  The applicant also lacked economic or social integration. He had never worked and essentially lived on social benefits. As for any difficulties the applicant might face in Turkey, those seemed surmountable. Regarding his allegation that he had no command of the Turkish language, criminal investigations into his offences had shown that he had been perfectly capable of switching between German and Turkish for drug dealing. Also, other oral communication in Turkish had been established, for example two telephone calls with his father from prison. At the oral hearing, he had also conceded that his fluency had improved since 2005. Moreover, the applicant was familiar with Turkish living conditions, since he had visited Turkey twice as a child. His grandfather had shown a rather traditional attitude and he had, in order to improve his Turkish skills, spent a lot of time with family since 2005. He would not be without support in Turkey, even though the relationship with his father might be tense and other contact in Turkey could only be established through his sister.
24. On 25 March 2015 the Rhineland-Palatine Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal, endorsing the Administrative Court’s assessment, while also taking into account the developments that had taken place since.
25.  On 7 October 2015, the Federal Constitutional Court did not accept the complaint for adjudication without providing reasons (no. 2 BvR 826/15).
26.  An attempt to deport the applicant on 9 October 2015 was unsuccessful, because the applicant did not possess a valid passport.
27.  On 17 December 2015, the applicant submitted an asylum application, invoking the danger of re-traumatisation as a bar to his deportation. He was granted a temporary permit to stay for the purposes of the asylum proceedings (Aufenthaltsgestattung). No information about the current state of these proceedings has been submitted to the Court.
28.  On 17 March 2016 the competent authority rejected an application by the applicant concerning a further reduction of the duration of the re‑entry ban. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Administrative Court. No information about the current state of those proceedings has been provided.