Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850701-1127884
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 09:49:42+00:00
Document Index: 148464521

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 14", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 8", "l'article 14", "l'article 27", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 21", "l'article 27"]

Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche Famille K. et W. c. PAYS-BAS
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 11278/84Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-07-01;11278.84 Analyses : (Art. 5-3) DUREE DE LA DETENTION PROVISOIRE, (Art. 6) PROCEDURE PENALEParties : Demandeurs : Famille K. et W.Défendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃ.TE NÂ° 11278184 Family K . and W . vhhe NETHERLANDS Famille K . et W . c/PAYS-BA S DECISION of I July 1985 on the adnÃ¹ssibility of the application DÃCISION du 1Â°' juillet 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention : 7he expulsion of a person from the countrr wltere his close relatives live mav interfere with his right to respect for family life . In the case of a married person, the possibilityfor spouse and children to follow ihe person concerrted is a relevant factor . Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention : The expulsion of an alien convicted of dealing in heroin mar be regarded as necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the prorection of healih and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . A rticle 14 of the Convention : 7his Article onlv prohibits discrimirmtion in the enjoyments of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention . Competence ratione materiae : 77te Convention does not guarantee, as such, a right to acquire a panicular nationality. 77te Convention does not, as such, guarantee an alien either a right to enrer or to reside in a panicular countrv, or a right not to be e-rpe[[ed therefrom . Article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : L'expulsion d'une personne du pays oÃ¹ vivent de proches parents peut porter atteinte au droit au respect de la vie familiale. S'agissant d'une personne mar(Ã©e, la possibilitÃ© qu'ont son conjoint et ses enfanrs de la suivre est un Ã©lÃ©menr peninent . Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : L'expulsion d'un Ã©tranger condamnÃ© pour trafic d'hÃ©rol"ne peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme nÃ©cessaire Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© et Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . 216
Article 14 de la Convention : Cet a rticle n'interdit la discriminÃ¢tion que dans la jouissance des droits et libenÃ©s garantis par la Convenrion . CompÃ©tence ratione materiae : La Convenrion ne garantit, comme ted, aucun droit d'acquÃ©rir une narionalirÃ© dÃ©rerminÃ©e. La Convention ne garantit, comme tel, aucun droit pour un Ã©trangÃ©r d'enver ou de rÃ©sider darts un pays dLterminÃ© ou de ne pas en Ã©tre expulsÃ© .
((rnntâ¢ais : voir p . 222)
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicants, may be sumntarised as follows : The first applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1961 . She is married to the second applicant, who is a British citizen, bom in 1958 in Hong Kong and a cook by profession, but presently unemployed . The third and the founh applicants are their children born in the Netherlands in 1980 and 1983 and of British nationality . The second applicant appears to be in hiding at present . The other applicants reside in Amsterdam . In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicants are represented by Mr . Caarls, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam . The second applicant allegedly came to the Netherlands in 1976 without a residence permit . In the course of 1979 . he met the first applicant and by the end of 1979, they started to live together . Their first daughter was bom in 1980 and by the end of the same year, the second applicant obtained a residence permit for working purposes, which expired on I I September 1981 . In December 1982 the second applicant was arrested on charges of possessing a large quantity of heroin and on 27 April 1983 the Regional Court (Arrondissenientsrechtbank) of Amsterdam found him guilty and sentenced him to two years and six months imprisonment . The second applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision . On 20 June 1983, the first and second applicant married in prison and in August 1983, their second daughter was born . On 9 November 1983, the second applicant requested a prolongation of the validity of his residence permit . This was refused by the Deputy Minister of Justice on 30 December 1983 on the grounds that he had infringed public order by the above criminal offence . Moreover, considering the seriousness of the offence, the Deputy Minister, at the request of the head of the Amsterdam police, declared him an undesired alien . His family circumstances were not thought to be of sufficient importance to alter this decision .
On 7 April 1984, the second applicant requested the Deputy Minister to revise this decision, claiming that his relationship with his Dutch wife and his children, who are being raised in the Netherlands as Dutch children, should guarantee him the right to stay in the Netherlands . In addition, he considered that he was rapidly adapting himself to the Netherlands society and claimed that it could not be expected of his wife and children to follow him to Hong Kong, where the standard of living is considerably lower and where his chances to find a job would not be high, while he was guaranteed a job in the Netherlands .
In June 1984 . two reports about the second applicant were drawn up by the Probation Bureau (Reclassering), containing very positive prognoses for the second applicant's behaviour after his release . However, his request was rejected in conformity with the advice of the Advisory Committee for Aliens Affairs on 12 July 1984 . Subsequently, the second applicant lodged an appeal with the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 10 August 1984, repeating his former complaints and adding Ihat his wife and children would have language problems as they would have to speak Chinese . He furthermore complained, inter alia, that his expulsion would amount to an interference with his family life, which was unjustified as the chances of his committing any further crime were small . Moreover, since he had been declared an undesired alien for an unlimited period of time . it would be impossible for him to visit his family or file a new request for a residence permit after five years . He also complained that the Act on Dutch Citizenship (Wet op het Nederlanderschap) was discriminatory as a woman married to a Dutch man would have had the possibility to obtain Dutch nationality simply by writing a letter expressing this wish to the mayor of her municipality, and thus render an expulsion impossible . For him, being a man married to a Dutch woman, this possibility did not exist . However, the Deputy Minister did not grant this appeal suspensive effect . The applicant was released on 17 August 1984 . All applicants then initiated summary proceedings before the President of the Regional Court of Amsterdam on 9 November 1984, with a request for an injunction order claiming that the state acted unlawfully by not granting suspensive effect to the second applicant's appeal and invoking, inter alia, Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention . On 15 November 1984, the President of the Regional Court rejected the request on the grounds that the interference with the applicant's family life was justified as the second applicant's presence in the Netherlands could constitute a danger to the general interest . He also considered that according to the Supreme Court's case law, there was no sex discrimination to be deduced from the Act on Dutch Citizenship .
On 27 November 1984, the applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Amsterdam, while the second applicant wrote a le tter to the Mayor of Amsterdam on 26 November 1984, formally stating that he wanted to become a Dutch citizen on the basis of the Act on Dutch Citizenship . The appeals to the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction and to the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam appear to be still pending .
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that if the second applicant had been female and the first applicant male, the second applicant could easily have obtained Dutch citizenship under the Act on Dutch Citizenship, and this would have prevented his expulsion . In their situation, however, this possibility did not exist and this constituted a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention . The applicants also complain that the expulsion of the second applicant would constitute an interference with their family life in contravention of Article 8 para . I of the Convention . This interference would not be justified, as the first applicant has always lived in the Netherlands, and the children were born there as well . The first and second applicants want them to have a Dutch education . It cannot, therefore, be expected of the other applicants to follow the second applicant to Hong Kong, where the standard of living is much lower and where the second applicant's chances to find a job are low . Moreover, the difference in culture is enormous and the other applicants would have to speak Chinese . The applicants, furthermore, claim that the second applicant will have no more contacts with the drvg scene, as he will have a job in his brother's restaurant outside Amsterdam and as the uncle, for whom he committed the crime, has left the Netherlands . They also refer to the two reports drawn up by the Probation Bureau in which the risk that the second applicant will again commit a criminal offence is considered to be very small . The applicants consider that this interference with their family life is thus not necessary in a democratic society, and submit that their family life is even more threatened by the fact that the second applicant is declared an undesired alien, which makes it impossible for him to visit the Netherlands . The expulsion of the second applicant would in their opinion also be a violation of Article 8 para . 2 of the Convention .
THE LA W 1 . The applicants have complained that they were discriminated against on the ground of sex in their right to respect for family life, as the former Act on Dutch Citizenship made it possible for the foreign wife of a male Dutch citizen to obtai n
Dutch nationality by a mere declaration of her wish to do so to the local mayor . Had this been possible for the second applicant, as a male foreign spouse of a Dutch citizen, he would have obtained Dutch nationality and the Dutch authorities would not have had the possibility to expel him . The applicants have invoked Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention in this respect . Article 14 provides : "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national ntinority . property, birth or other status . " However, the Commission recalls that Article 14 of the Convention only prohibits discrimination with respect to the enjoyment of the rights and freedonis set forth in Lhe Convention . It is true that the applicants have invoked Article 8 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, but the Commission finds that the right to acquire a particular nationality is neither covered by . nor sufficiently related to . this or any other provision of the Convention . It follows that this part of the contplaint must be rejected under Article 27 para . 2 of ihe Convention as being incompatible ratiorte materiae with the provisions of the Convention . 2 . The applicants have also complained that an expulsion of the second applicant as an undesired alien would constitute an unjustifted interference with their family life, as it cannot be expected of the his wife and children to follow him to Hong Kong . They have invoked Article 8 of the Convention which provides : "I . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . 2 . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights an freedoms of others . " The Commission observes that the competent court continues to be seized of the appeal against expulsion, but (hat this appeal does not carry suspensive effect . The question whether the applicants have exhausted the domestic remedies a t their disposal can, however, be left open since the question before the Commission is whether the obligation imposed on the second applicant, namely to leave the territory of the Netherlands immediately, i .e . before the expulsion has become final, reveals an appearance of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention .
It is true that no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country, nor a right not to be expelled from a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention (cf. e .g . No . 4314/69, Dec . 2 .2 .70, Collection 32 p . 96 and No . 5269/64, Dec . 8 .2 .72, Collection 39 p . 104) . However, Article 8 of the Convention guarantees to everyone, amongst others, a right to respect for his family life . In this connection, the Commission has held that the exclusion of a person from a country in which his close relatives live could involve a violation of this provision . In a number of cases the Commission has considered situations where, as in this case, a married man is obliged to leave a State in which he has been living with his wife and children . In such cases, the Commission has considered as a relevant factor the possibility of the family to follow the husband and father . This principle applies also where one or more of the persons concerned are nationals of the country ordering the expulsion of the other person (cf . No . 312/57, Dec . 9 .1 .59 . Yearbook 2 p. 352 and No. 2535/65, Dec . 16 .7 .65, Collection 17 p. 28) . In the present case, the first applicant is of Dutch nationality . It is further alleged that it cannot be expected of her and her children to follow the second applicant to Hong Kong . The Commission accepts that in the present case, there is an interference with the applicants' rights to family life . The Commission recalls, however, that under Article 8 para . 2, there may be an interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right, if such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . The second applicant was declared an undesired alien, in accordance with Section 21 of the Aliens Act, in order to protect public order by preventing the applicant from returning to the Netherlands after his expulsion . The Commission observes that the applicant had been found guilty of dealing in heroin, a crinte which is internationally regarded as a very serious threat to public order and health . Having assessed the grounds on which the Netherlands authorities based their decision and having considered the consequences for the applicants' family life, the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes an interference which is justified under Article 8 para . 2 of the Convention (cf. No . 7816/77, Dec . 19 .5 .77 . D .R . 9 p . 219) . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUC7lON) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause, tels que les requÃ©rants les ont exposÃ©s, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit . La premiÃ©re requÃ©rante est une ressortissante nÃ©erlandaise, nÃ©e en 1961 . Elle est mariÃ©e au second requÃ©rant, ressonissant britannique nÃ© en 1958 Ã Hong Kong et cuisinier de profession, mais actuellement sans emploi . Les troisiÃ©me et quatriÃ©me requÃ©rants sont leurs enfants, nÃ©s aux Pays-Bas en 1980 et 1983 et titulaires de la nationalitÃ© britannique . Le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant semble Ãªtre en fuite actuellement . Les autres requÃ©rants habitent Amsterdam . Dans la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, les requÃ©rants sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s par MÂ° M . Caarls, avocat Ã Amsterdam . Le second requÃ©rant serait arrivÃ© aux Pays-Bas en 1976, sans autorisation de sÃ©jour . Au cours de 1979, il rencontra la premiÃ©re requÃ©rante et Ã la fin de l'annÃ©e, ils commencÃ¨rent Ã cohabiter . Leur premiÃ¨re fille est nÃ©e en 1980 et Ã la fin de cette annÃ©e-lÃ , le second requÃ©rant obtint un permis de sÃ©jour et de travail qui vint Ã expiration le 11 septembre 1981 . En dÃ©cembre 1982, le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant fut arrÃªtÃ© pour dÃ©tention d'une grande quantitÃ© d'hÃ©roÃ¯ne . Le 27 avril 1983, le tribunal rÃ©gional (Arrondissementsrechtbank) d'Amsterdam le dÃ©clara coupable et le condamna Ã deux ans et six mois de prison . L'intÃ©ressÃ© ne fit pas appel de cette dÃ©cision . Le 20juin 1983, les premier et deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rants se mariÃ¨rent en prison et en aoÃ¹t 1983 naquit leur deuxiÃ©me ftlle . Le 9 novembre 1983, le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant demanda une prolongation de son permis de sÃ©jour, ce que le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat Ã la Justice lui refusa le 30 dÃ©cembre 1983, au motif que le demandeur avait troublÃ© l'ordre public en commettant l'infraction pÃ©nale susdite . En outre, vu la gravitÃ© de l'infraction, et Ã la demande du chef de la police d'Amsterdam, le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat dÃ©clara le requÃ©rant Ã©tranger indÃ©sirable . Sa situation de famille ne fut pas jugÃ©e d'importance suffisante pour modifier la dÃ©cision . Le 7 avril 1984, le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant demanda au SecrÃ©taire d'Etat de revenir sur cette dÃ©cision, en faisant valoir que ses relations avec son Ã©pouse nÃ©erlandaise et ses enfants, qui sont Ã©levÃ©s aux Pays-Bas comme des enfants nÃ©erlandais, devraient lui garantir le droit de rester aux Pays-Bas . De plus, il estimait s'adapter rapidement Ã la sociÃ©tÃ© nÃ©erlandaise et prÃ©tendit que l'on ne pouvait pas espÃ©rer de sa femme et de ses enfants qu'ils le suivent Ã Hong Kong oÃ¹ le niveau de vie est considÃ©rablement infÃ©rieur et oÃ¹ ses chances de trouver un emploi seraient minces alors qu'il a un travail assurÃ© aux Pays-Bas . 222
En juin 1984, le service de probation (Reclassering) Ã©tablit sur le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant deux rapports contenant des pronostics trÃ¨s positifs quant au comportement de l'intÃ©ressÃ© aprÃ¨s sa libÃ©ration . Sa demande de sÃ©jour fut cependant rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'avis rendu par la Commission consultative pour les Ã©trangers le 12 juillet 1984 . UltÃ©rieurement, le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant introduisit un recours auprÃ¨s de la Division du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State) le 10 aoÃ»t 1984, rÃ©itÃ©rant ses prÃ©cÃ©dents griefs et ajoutant que son Ã©pouse et ses enfants auraient des problÃ¨mes linguistiques puisqu'ils devraient parler chinois . Il se plaignait en outre que son expulsion constitue une ingÃ©rence dans sa vie familiale, qui n'est pas justifiÃ©e puisque les risques de le voir commettre une autre infraction sont faibles . Par ailleurs, cotrune il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© Ã©tranger indÃ©sirable pour une pÃ©riode illimitÃ©e, il lui serait impossible de venir voir sa famille ou de dÃ©poser une nouvelle demande de permis de sÃ©jour au bout de cinq ans . II se plaignait Ã©galement de ce que la loi sur la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise (Wet op het Nederlanderschap) a un caractÃ©re discriminatoire puisqu'une femme mariÃ©e Ã un NÃ©erlandais aurait eu la possiblitÃ© d'obtenir la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise en Ã©crivant simplement une lettre en ce sens au maire de sa commune, ce qui empÃªcherait son expulsion : .Par contre, pour lui, mariÃ© Ã une NÃ©erlandaise, cette possibilitÃ© n'existe pas . Le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat n'accorda cependant pas l'effet suspensif Ã ce recours . Le requÃ©rant fut remis en libertÃ© le 17 ao0t 1984 . La totalitÃ© des requÃ©rants ont alors engagÃ© le 9 novembre 1984 une procÃ©dure en rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© devant le prÃ©sident du tribunal rÃ©gional d'Amsterdam, assortie d'une demande d'injonction : ils firent valoir que l'Etat avait agi de maniÃ¨re illÃ©gale en n'accordant pas l'effet suspensif au recours formÃ© par le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant et invoquÃ¨rent notamment les articles 8 et 14 de la Convention . Le 15 novembre 1984, le prÃ©sident du tribunal rÃ©gional rejeta la demande au motif que l'ingÃ©rence dans la vie familiale du requÃ©rant Ã©tait justifiÃ©e par le fait que la prÃ©sence du deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant aux Pays-Bas pouvait constituer un danger pour l'ordre public . Il estima Ã©galement que, selon la jurisprudence de la Cour suprÃªme, aucune discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe ne pouvait Ã©tre tirÃ©e de la loi sur la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise . Le 27 novembre 1984, les requÃ©rants se pourvurent devant la cour d'appel (Gerechtshof) d'Amsterdam . Le deuxiÃ©me requÃ©rant Ã©crivit au maire d'Amsterdam le 26 novembre 1984 une lÃ©ttre indiquant officiellement son dÃ©sir de devenir citoyen nÃ©erlandais sur la base de la loi sur la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise . Les appels devant .la Division du Contentieux du Conseil d'Etat et la cour d'appel d'Amsterdam sont toujours pendants, semble-t-il .
GRIEFS Les requÃ©rants se plaignent du fait que si le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© une fentnte et la premiÃ¨re un homme, le deuxiÃ¨me aurait pu facilement obtenir la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise en vertu de la loi sur la nationalitÃ©, ce qui aurait empÃ©chÃ© son expulsion . Compte tenu de la situation cependant, cette possibilitÃ© n'existe pas et ce fait mÃªme constitue une violation de l'article 14 combinÃ© avec l'article 8 de la Convention .
Les requÃ©rants se plaignent Ã©galement de ce que l'expulsion du deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant constitue une ingÃ©rence dans leur vie familiale contraire Ã l'article 8 par . I de la Convention . Ceue ingÃ©rence n'est pas justifiÃ©e puisque la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante a toujours vÃ©cu aux Pays-Bas . de mÃ©me que leurs enfants qui y sont nÃ©s . Les deux premiers requÃ©rants dÃ©sirent donner Ã leurs enfants une Ã©ducation nÃ©erlandaise . On se saurait dÃ¨s lors attendre des autres requÃ©rants qu'ils suivent le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant Ã Hong Kong, oÃ¹ le niveau de vie est bien infÃ©rieur Ã celui des Pays-Bas et oÃ¹ les chances pour l'intÃ©ressÃ© de trouver un emploi sont minces . En outre, la diffÃ©rence de culture est Ã©norme et les autres requÃ©rants devraient parler chinois . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent en outre que le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant n'aura plus de contact avec le monde de la drogue puisqu'il a maintenant un emploi dans le restaurant tenu par son frÃ¨re en dehors d'Amsterdam et que l'oncle pour lequel il avait commis l'infraction a quiuÃ© les Pays-Bas . Les requÃ©rants invoquent Ã©galement les deux rapports Ã©tablis par le service de probation, qui juge infime le risque de voir le deuxiÃ©me requÃ©rant rÃ©cidiver . Les requÃ©rants estiment que cette ingÃ©rence dans leur vie familiale n'est dÃ¨s lors pas nÃ©cessaire dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique et soutiennent que leur vie familiale est d'autant plus menacÃ©e que le fait pour le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant d'avoir Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© Ã©tranger indÃ©sirable lui interdit toute visite Ã sa famille aux Pays-Bas . Selon eux, l'expulsion du deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant est Ã©galement une violation de l'article 8 par . 2 de la Convention .
EN DROI T 1 . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent d'Ã¨tre victimes, dans leur droit au respect de la vie familiale, d'une discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe, puisque la prÃ©cÃ©dente loi sur la nationalitÃ© permettait Ã l'Ã©pouse Ã©trangÃ¨re d'un NÃ©erlandais d'obtenir la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise par une simple dÃ©claration en ce sens faite au maire du lieu . Si cela avait Ã©tÃ© possible pour le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant, comme Ã©poux Ã©tranger d'une ressortissante nÃ©erlandaise, il aurait obtenu la nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise et les autoritÃ©s n'auraient pas eu la possibilitÃ© de l'expulser . Les requÃ©rants invoquent Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 14 de la Convention combinÃ© avec l'anicle 8 .
L'article 14 est ainsi libellÃ© : - La jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention doit Ã¨tre assurÃ©e, sans distinction aucune, fondÃ©e notamment sur le sexe, la race, la couleur, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques ou toutes autres opinions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance Ã une minoritÃ© nationale, la fortune, la naissance ou toute autre situation .La Commission rappelle cependant que l'article 14 de la Convention n'interdit la discrimination qu'en ce qui concerne la jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention . Les requÃ©rants ont certes invoquÃ© l'article 8, lu en liaison avec l'article 14 de la Convention, mais la Commission estime que le droit d'acquÃ©rir une nationalitÃ© prÃ©cise n'est pas couvert par cet article ni par aucune autre dispositio . ndelaCovti,n'psoludeifsantvcedipons Il s'ensuit que le grief doit Ã¨tre rejetÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention pour incompatibilitÃ© ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention . 2 . Les requÃ©rants se sont plaints Ã©galement de ce qu'une expulsion du deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant comme Ã©tranger indÃ©sirable constituerait une ingÃ©rence injustifiÃ©e dans leur vie fantiliale puisqu'on ne peut pas s'attendre Ã ce que l'Ã©pouse et les enfants le suivent Ã Hong-Kong . Ils ont invoquÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 8 de la Convention, ainsi libellÃ© : - I . Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . 2 . II ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©tnocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la suretÃ© publique, au bien-Ãªtre Ã©conomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'auuvi . . La Commission reniarque que le tribunal compÃ©tent est toujours saisi du recours contre l'expulsion mais que ce recours n'a pas d'effet suspensif . La question de savoir si les requÃ©rants ont Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes Ã leur disposition peut cependant rester ouverte puisque la question posÃ©e Ã la Commission est celle de savoir si l'obligation faite au second requÃ©rant de quitter immÃ©diatement le territoire des Pays-Bas, donc avant que l'expulsion ait acquis un caractÃ¨re dÃ©finitif, rÃ©vÃ¨le une apparence de violation de l'article 8 de la Convention . Il est exact que la Convention ne garantit, comme tel, aucun droit pour un Ã©tranger d'entrer ou de rÃ©sider sur le territoire d'un pays dÃ©temiinÃ© ou de ne pas en Ãªtre expulsÃ© (cf . par exemple No 4314/69, dÃ©c . 2 .2 .70 . Recueil 32 p . 96 et No 5269/71 . dÃ©c . 8 .2 .72 . Recueil 39 P . 104) .
L'article 8 de la Convention garantit cependant Ã toute personne notamment le droit au respect de sa vie familiale . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'exclure une personne d'un pays oÃ¹ vivent ses parents proches peut emporter violation de cette disposition . Dans bon nombre d'affaires, la Commission a examinÃ© une situation oÃ¹, comme en l'espÃ¨ce, un homme mariÃ© est obligÃ© de quitter un Etat oÃ¹ il vivait avec son Ã©pouse et ses enfants . En pareil cas, la Commission a considÃ©rÃ© comme un Ã©lÃ©ment pertinent la possibilitÃ© pour la famille de suivre le mari et pÃ¨re . Ce principe s'applique Ã©galement lorsqu'une ou plusieurs des personnes concernÃ©es sont ressortissantes du pays qui ordonne l'expulsion du membre de leur famille (cf . No 312/57, dÃ©c . 9 .1 .59, Annuaire 2 p . 352 et No 2535/65, dÃ©c . 16 .7 .65, Recueil 17 p . 28) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante est de nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise . Les requÃ©rants allÃ©guent en outre qu'on ne peut pas s'attendre Ã ce que l'Ã©pouse et les enfants suivent le second requÃ©rant Ã Hong-Kong . La Commission reconnait qu'en l'espÃ¨ce il y a ingÃ©rence dans les droits des requÃ©rants au respect de leur vie familiale . La Commission rappelle cependant qu'aux tertnes de l'article 8 par . 2, il peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit si ladite ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et nÃ©cessaire dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . Or, le second requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© Ã©tranger indÃ©sirable conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 21 de la loi sur les Ã©trangers et ce afin de protÃ©ger l'ordre public en empÃ©chant l'intÃ©ressÃ© de revenir aux Pays-Bas aprÃ¨s son expulsion . La Commission remarque que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© coupable de trafic d'hÃ©roÃ¯ne, infraction considÃ©rÃ©e sur le plan international comme une menace trÃ¨s grave Ã l'ordre public et Ã la santÃ© publique . AprÃ¨s avoir ainsi apprÃ©ciÃ© les raisons pour lesquelles les autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises ont pris leur dÃ©cision et aprÃ©s avoir tenu compte des effets de cette dÃ©cision sur la vie familiale des requÃ©rants, la Commission conclut que la mesure incriminÃ©e constitue une ingÃ©rence qui se justifie par application de l'anicle 8 par . 2 de la Convention (cf . No 78 1 6/77- dÃ©c . 1 9 .5 .77, D .R . 9 p . 219) . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ©te est sur ce point manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE 226Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 01/07/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page