Source: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight_docid=cedh%3A%2F%2F20001005_54273_00%3Ade&lang=de&type=show_document
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 10:00:57
Document Index: 351585401

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 54', '§ 3']

Boultif Abdelouahab gegen Schweiz
As a result, on 19 May 1998 the Directorate for Social Matters and Security(Direktion für Soziales und Sicherheit) of the Canton of Zurich refused to renew the applicant's residence permit (Aufenthaltsbewilligung).
The applicant's appeal against the decision of 19 May 1998 was dismissed by the Government(Regierungsrat) and subsequently by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of the Canton of Zurich. The latter relied in particular on Sections 7 and 11 of the Federal Aliens' Domicile and Residence Act (Bundesgesetz über Aufenthalt und Niederlassung der Ausländer) and on Section 16 § 3 of the Ordinance implementing the Act (Vollziehungsverordnung). The Court found that the non-renewal might separate the applicant from his wife, though they could live together in another country, or visit each other.
His administrative law appeal(Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 3 November 1999. The Court recalled that according to Section 10 § 1 of the Federal Aliens Domicile and Residence Act the criminal conviction of a foreigner served as a ground for expulsion. It did not breach Article 8 of the Convention if the authorities refused to renew the applicant's residence permit in view of the offence which he had committed. The fact that he had behaved well in prison was irrelevant as this did not concern his conduct in liberty.
By decision of 1 December 1999 the Federal Aliens' Office(Bundesamt für Ausländerfragen) issued a prohibition for the applicant to enter Switzerland as from 15 January 2000 for an unspecified period of time (auf unbestimmte Dauer). By decision of 3 December 1999 the Office ordered the applicant to leave Switzerland by 15 January 2000.
Section 7 § 1 of the Federal Aliens' Domicile and Residence Act(Bundesgesetz über Aufenthalt und Niederlassung der Ausländer) provides:
According to Section 10 § 1 (a) of the Act, "the foreigner can be expelled from Switzerland or from a Canton if (a) he has been punished by a court for having committed a criminal offence or misdemeanour".
Section 11 § 3 of the Act provides that "expulsion shall only be ordered if it appears appropriate in view of the entire circumstances."
Section 16 § 3 of the Ordinance implementing the Federal Aliens' Domicile and Residence Act(Vollziehungsverordnung) provides:
"In order to establish the appropriateness (Section 11 § 3 of the Act), the following elements are important: the severity of the culpability of the foreigner; the period of his stay in Switzerland; the disadvantages which he and his family would incur. Expulsion shall not be threatened if it appears legally justified according to Section 10 § 1 (a), though inappropriate under the circumstances. The threat of expulsion must be issued as a written and motivated decision and shall clearly state what is to be expected from the foreigner."
The Government submit that the present case discloses no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Sections 7 § 1, 10 § 1 and 11 § 3 of the Aliens Domicile and Residence Act as well as Section 16 § 3 of the Ordinance implementing the Act, all of which have been duly published, provide a sufficient legal basis for the interference. According to these provisions, the residence permit of the foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen will not be renewed if there is a ground for expulsion. The Swiss authorities are called upon to examine the proportionality of the measure. Given the offences which the applicant committed in Switzerland, there can be no doubt that the measure was called for in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
The Government further contend that the measure was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention and that the Swiss authorities have not overstepped their margin of appreciation. Elements to be considered here are the nature of the offences committed, the length of the prison sentence, the length of the applicant's stay in Switzerland, and the effects which the refusal to prolong the residence permit will have on the applicant's wife. In the present case, both the Federal Court and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich carefully examined the applicant's situation. Their analysis of the situation cannot be called in question by the fact that the applicant did not commit any offences after his release from prison.
The Government submit that the applicant's conviction justified the refusal to renew the applicant's residence permit. 16 months after having entered Switzerland he committed a serious offence and was also convicted for the unlawful possession of arms. The applicant's stay in Switzerland was prolonged on the grounds that the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Zurich had not yet entered into legal force and that the applicant had to serve his prison sentence. Bearing in mind the brutal manner in which the offence was committed, the Government consider that the Court's case-law concerning drug offences applies by analogy also to the present case (see Eur. Court HR, Dalia v. France judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 92, § 54). This particularly serious breach of public order in itself justifies non-renewal of the applicant's residence permit.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the application raises serious issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of its merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.