Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19811208-947881
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 04:31:40+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9478/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-12-08;9478.81 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-2) INFORMATION DANS LE PLUS COURT DELAI, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9478/8 1 X . v/The FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y X . c/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 8 December 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 8 dÃ©cembre 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ@t e
Artlcle 8, para gr aph I of the Convention : a) In deciding whether the deportation of a foreigner constitutes an interference with his right to respect for family life, it is necessa ry lo examine whether his close family members have a reasonable oppo rtunity to follow him and whether there are jamily ties in the country of destination. b) In deciding whether the depo rtation of a foreigner constitutes an interference with his right to respect for private life, account musl be taken not only of links established in the host country but also of their precarious nature where the reridence permit has been conditional throughout.
Artlcle 8, paragraphe 1, de 4 Conventlon : a) Pour apprÃ©cier si l'espulsion d'un Ã©tranger porte atteinte d son droit au respect de sa vie familiale il faut re chercher si les p roches membres de sa famille ont une possibilitÃ© raisonnable de le suivre et s'ils ont des liens familiaux dans le pays de destination . b) Pour apprÃ©cier si l'espuGion d'un Ã©tranger po rte atteinte d son droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e, il faut tenir compte non seulement des liens qu'il a nouÃ©s dans le pays d'accueil mait aussi de leur caraclÃ¨re prÃ©caire, lorsque l'autorisation de sÃ©jour Ã©tait d'emblÃ©e conditionnelle .
(%rancair : voir p. 246 ) Summary of the relevant fncts The applicanP . of Indonesian nationality, arrived in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1970 as a student to join her husband, also an Indonesian studying in the FRG since 1969. The couple had two children, born in 1971 and 1972. Since 1973 the applicant has had a temporary work permit in order to suppon her family. This permit was specifically and strictly limited to the length of her husband's studies and the couple had to acknowledge in writing its exceptional nature and the attached conditions . The couple dirrorced in 1977 and custody of the children was awarded to the mother, the applicant. In 1980 the German authorities refused to renew the applicant's residence permit as the aforementioned conditiona were no longer fu l,filled, the applicant no longer having to support her husband . The applicant was given siz months within which to leave the territory of the FRG, on threat of deportation . Her various appeals were dismissed . THE LAW (Extract) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . The applicant complains that the interference which her proposed deportation constitutes with her "right to respect for her private and family life" as guaranteed by Article 8(1) cannot be regarded as "necessary" for any of the purposes-set out in Article 8 (2) . The Commission recalls that it has consistently held that the right for an alien not to be expelled from a particular country is not specifically guaranteed by the Convention (cf. e .g . Applications Nos 4314/69, Collection of Decisions 32, p . 96, 4403/70 and others Collection of Decisions 36, p . 92, 5269/74 Collection of Decisions 39, p . 104) . Nevertheless it has also held that expulsion from a country where close members of the deportee's family are living may amount to an infringement of Article 8 of the Convention . In deciding whether an interference has arisen in such cases the Commission has considered the practicability and reasonableness of the close members of family concerned accompanying or following the applicant (e .g . Application No . 5269/71 supra) . A further factor to be considered is the links which the deportee and the other members of the family have with the destination country and in particular whether there are further members of the family or relatives there . â¢ The applicant was represented before the Commission by Rechtsanwah Gerd Haselbach . lawver in Mainz .
In the present case the applicant is already responsible for the care of her children and has been fulftlling this obligation single handedly since her divorce . However it appears from the documents which have been submitted on her behalf that her parents still live in Indonesia and that she and her children have been in regular contact with them, to the extent that her children have spent periods of months staying with them . Accordingly the Commission is of the opinion that it would not be wholly unreasonable to expect the applicant to take her children with her to Indonesia, notwithstanding her contention that their educational and other prospects are worse there than in the Federal Republic and concludes that there is no appearance of an interference by the respondent Government with the applicant's right to respect for her family life within the meaning of Article 8 . As far as the applicant's private life is concerned, it is true that she has been in the Federal Republic of Germany continuously for over eleven years, during which time she and her children have established the network of friends and acquaintances which would be expected after a prolonged period spent in one area . The question before the Commission is therefore whether the relationships established by an individual's social intercourse over a given period constitute 'private life' within the meaning of Article 8(I) of the Convention . The Commission has already examined the scope of the meaning of "private life" under the Convention, notably in Application No . 6825/74, D .R . S p . 86) where it concluded that the term extended, beyond the right to live, as far as one wishes, protected from publicity, to include to a certain extent : "the right to establish and to develop relationships with other human beings . especially in the emotional rield, for the development and fulfilment of one's own personality" . The Commission has held however that the claim to respect for private life is automatically reduced 'to the extent that the individual himself brings his private life into contact with public life or into close connection with other protected interests" (Application No . 6959/75, D .R 10 . p . 100-115) . In the present case the applicant's presence in the Federal Republic of Germany was always subject to restrictions, which were personal to her and were in fact relaxed in her favour by way of an exception . However at no time was their any suggestion that her permission to remain in the Federal Republic was anything but conditional and temporary . Even assuming therefore that her circle of acquaintances established during her stay in Germany do constitute relationships recognised as private life within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Commissio n
concludes that the order for her deportation cannot be regarded as an interference with her right to respect for such relationships, since the applicant knew and acknowledged at all material times that her presence, and hence her basic ability to establish and develop such relationships, was temporary and subject to revocation . It follows that the applicant has not established an interference with her right to respect for her private life or, by analogy that of her children and hence to establish a breach of Article 8 of the Convention . Accordingly the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinent s De nationalitÃ© indonÃ©sienne, la requÃ©rante* est arrivÃ©e en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne en 1970 comme Ã©tudiante, pour rejoindre son mari, lui aussi indonÃ©sien et Ã©tudiant en RFA depuis 1969. Les Ã©poux ont eu deuz enfants. nÃ©s en 1971 et 1972 . DÃ¨s 1973, la requÃ©rante a obtenu une autorisation provisoire de travailler pour entretenir sa famille. Cette autorisation Ã©tait stipulÃ©e strictement limitÃ©e Ã la durÃ©e des Ã©tudes du mari et les Ã©poux durent reconnaÃ®tre par Ã©crit le caractÃ¨re exceptionnel de cette autorisation et les conditions qui y Ã©taient atmchÃ©es. Les Ã©poux divorcÃ¨rent en 1977 et les enfants furent confiÃ©s Ã leur mÃ¨re, la requÃ©rante . En 1980, les autoritÃ©s allemandes refusÃ¨rent de renouveler l'autorisation de sÃ©jour de la requÃ©rante au motif que la condition susmentionnÃ©es n'Ã©tait plus rÃ©alisÃ©e, la requÃ©rante n'ayant plus Ã aider financiÃ¨rement son mari. Un dÃ©lai de six mois Ã©tait imparti Ã la requÃ©rante pour quitter le territoire de la RFA, sous menace d'expulsion. Ses divers recours ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©s.
â¢ La requÃ©rante Ã©tait reprÃ©sentÃ©e devant la Commission par Me Gerd Hasselbach . avocat Ã Mayence .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait) La requÃ©rante se plaint que la mesure d'expulsion envisagÃ©e Ã son Ã©gard constitue, dans l'exercice de son .droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale ., garanti par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, une ingÃ©rence qui ne peut pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme .nÃ©cessaireâ¢ Ã l'un des objectifs Ã©numÃ©rÃ©s Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . La Commission rappe8e que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la Convention ne garantit pas expressÃ©ment le droit pour un Ã©tranger de ne pas Ãªtre expulsÃ© d'un pays dÃ©terminÃ© (cf . par exemple requÃªtes nÂ° 4314/69, Recueil de DÃ©cisions 32, p . 96 ; nÂ° 4403/70 et autres, Recueil de DÃ©cisions 36, p . 92 ; nÂ° 5269/74, Recueil de DÃ©cisions 39, p . 104) . Cependant, elle a Ã©galement dÃ©clarÃ© que l'expulsion d'un pays oÃ¹ vivent des membres proches de la famille de l'expulsÃ© peut Ãªtre contraire Ã l'article 8 de la Convention . Pour dÃ©cider si tel est le cas, la Commission examine s'il est possible et raisonnable que les proches membres de la fami0e accompagnent ou suivent le requÃ©rant (cf . par exemple requÃªte nÂ° 5269/71, supra) . Un autre Ã©lÃ©ment doit aussi Ãªtre pris en considÃ©ration : les liens que l'expulsÃ© et les autres membres de sa famille entretiennent avec le pays de destination et, notamment, la prÃ©sence d'autres membres de la famille dans ce pays . En l'espÃ¨ce, la requÃ©rante a la charge de ses enfants, qu'elle Ã©lÃ¨ve seule depuis son divorce . Il ressort cependant des Ã©lÃ©ments du dossier que ses parents vivent toujours en IndonÃ©sie et qu'elle-mÃªme et ses enfants entretiennent des contacts rÃ©guliers avec eux puisque les enfants ont mÃªme sÃ©journÃ© plusieurs mois chez eux . En consÃ©quence, la Commission est d'avis qu'il ne serait pas vraiment dÃ©raisonnable de s'attendre Ã ce que la requÃ©rante emmÃ¨ne ses enfants avec elle en IndonÃ©sie, mÃªme si elle soutient que les possibilitÃ©s d'instruction et autres y sont moins bonnes qu'en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale . Elle en conclut qu'il n'y a pas apparence d'ingÃ©rence du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie familiale que l'article 8 garantit Ã la requÃ©rante . En ce qui conceme la vie privÃ©e de la requÃ©rante, il est vrai que celle-ci a sÃ©journÃ© de maniÃ¨re continue en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne depuis plus de Il ans et qu'elle et ses enfants y ont constituÃ© le rÃ©seau d'amis et de relations habituel aprÃ¨s un long sÃ©jour dans un pays . La Commission doit donc Ã©tablir si les liens crÃ©Ã©s par les rapports sociaux d'un individu pendant une pÃ©riode donnÃ©e relÃ¨vent de â¢la vie privÃ©eâ¢, au sens de l'article 8, paragraphe 1 . de la Convention .
La Commission a dÃ©jÃ interprÃ©tÃ© l'expression â¢vie p ri vÃ©e . employÃ©e dans la Conventi on, notamment dans la requÃªte nÂ° 6825/74 ( D .R . 5, p . 88) oÃ¹ elle a admis que l'expression visait non seulement le droit de vivre autant qu'on le dÃ©sire Ã l'ab ri des regards Ã©trangers mais incluait aussi, dans une certaine mesure : .le droit d'Ã©tablir et d'entretenir des relations avec d'aut re s Ãªtres humains, notamment dans le domaine affectif, pour le dÃ©veloppement et l'Ã©panouissement de sa propre personnalitÃ© â¢ . La Commission a cependant dÃ©clarÃ© que la prÃ©tention au respect de la vie p rivÃ©e se trouve automatiquement rÃ©duite dans la mesure oÃ¹ l'individu lui-mÃªme met sa vie privÃ©e en contact avec la vie publique ou la place dans un rapport Ã© troit avec d'autres intÃ©rÃªts protÃ©gÃ©s (requÃªte nÂ° 6959/75, D .R . 10, pp . 100 Ã 138) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la prÃ©sence de la requÃ©rante en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne a toujours Ã© tÃ© soumise Ã des restricti ons qui lui Ã© taient personnelles et auxquelles il ne fut en fait dÃ©rogÃ© qu'Ã ti tre exceptionnel . Cependant, rien n'a jamais permis de penser que l'auto ri sation de sÃ©jour en RÃ©pubGque FÃ©dÃ©rale ait cessÃ© d'Ã©tre conditionnelle et temporaire . MÃªme en admettant que les liens que la requÃ©rante a nouÃ©s pendant son sÃ©jour en Allemagne soient reconnus comme relevant de la vie p rivÃ©e, au sens de l'a rt icle 8, paragraphe 1, de la Conven ti on, la Commission estime que l'arrÃ©tÃ© d'expulsion de ' la re quÃ©rante ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme une atteinte au droit au re spect de ces liens, puisque la requÃ©rante savait et a reconnu Ã l'Ã©poque des faits que sa prÃ©sence, et donc la possibilitÃ© pour elle de crÃ©er et de dÃ©velopper ces liens, Ã©taient temporaires et prÃ©caires . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ©rante n'a pas Ã©tabli l'existence d'une atteinte Ã son droit au respect de sa vie p ri vÃ©e ou, par analogie, de celle de ses enfants, et n'a donc pas montrÃ© qu'il y ait pu y avoir violation de l'article 8 de la Convention . En consÃ©quence, le g rief de la requÃ©rante est manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
- 248 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 08/12/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 27