Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810505-920380
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 08:38:30+00:00
Document Index: 122277015

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

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9203/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-05-05;9203.80 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : X. C. DANEMARKTexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9203/8 0 X . v/DENMAR K X . c/DANEMAR K DECISION of 5 May 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 5 mai 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artlcle 8, peragraph 2 of the Convention : Deporration of an alien rnanied to a nationa l of the country concerned. Measure justified . in the circuntstances of the present case . in pa rt icular in view of the conviction of the person concerned for having infringed the drug traffic code .
Artlcle 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Expulsion d'un Ã©tranger mariÃ© Ã une ressortissante du pays. Mesure justifiÃ©e, dans les circonstances du cas d'espÃ¨ce, notantment en raison de la condamnation de !'intÃ©ressÃ© pour infraction Ã !a lÃ©gislation sur les stupÃ©fiants.
(francais : voir p. 241 )
The applicant, of Egyptian nationaliry . met a Danish wontan in 1 977 who bore hini a son . The couple settled in Rome, where they rnarried. As the spouse preferred to live in Denmark, where she had a job and an apparbnent, the couple went to Copenhagen where they had civil tnarriage . The applicant obtained a residence permit in Denmark . . In Auturna 1978 the applicant went to Rome where he met a girljriend and two other friends who planned with him a trip to Bangkok . Later, the applicant and his girlfriend went to Copenhagen . He was arrested at the airport with his two friends carry ing over 200 grammes of heroin . In November 1 979 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to four years' irnprisonntent for conspiracy in drug traffic and the competent Danish authorities decided to deport him at the expi ry of his sentence.
THE LA W The applicant has complained about his expulsion front Denntark . The Commission recalls in the first place that it has repeatedly held 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 . Applications Nos . 4314/69 . Collection of Decisions 32, p . 96 ; 4403/70 and others . Collection of Decisions 36, p . 92 ; and 5269/74, Collection of Decisions 39 . p . 104, Decisions and Reports 12, p . 197) . However the applicant has also submitted that by reason of his expulsion his right to respect for his family life has been interfered with since he has to leave his Danish wife, who now is expecting his child . It is true that Article 8(1) of the Convention provides that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence" . The Conimission has constantly held that the expulsion of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringenient of Article 8 and in a number of cases the Commission has considered situations where, as in this case, a married person is obliged to leave a State in which he has been living with his spouse who is a national of the country ordering the expulsion (see, for example, Application No . 8041/77, Decisions and Reports 12 . p . 197) . However, under Article 8 (2) of the Convention there may be an interference with the right .s guaranteed under paragraph (1) of that provision, if such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic societv for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of health and ntorals . In the present case the Commission accepts that the applicant's expulsion front Dcnmark constituted an interference with his family life . However, given the serious nature of the crime of which he was convicted in Denmark . the Comntission is satisfied that the interference complained of was justified under paragraph (2) of Article 8 as a measure taken in accordance with the law and necessarv in a deniocratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime . It follows that, even assuming that the applicant has exhausted the dontestic remedies at his disposal, the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
RÃ©sumÃ© des lsits Le requÃ©runl, qni est de nationalitÃ© Ã©gvptiemte, a fait en 1977 la connaissance dune danoise, dont il a eu un fils. Le couple se fixa Ã Rome en 1978 et .+''v utaria .
Comme l'Ã©pouse prÃ©fÃ©rait vivre au Danernark, oÃ¹ elle avait un emploi et un logenrent, le couple se rendit Ã Coperrhague et y fit cÃ©lÃ©brer un mariage civil. Le requÃ©rant obtint une autorisation de sÃ©jour au Danentark . Â£n autonute 1978, le requÃ©rant se rendit Ã Rome . oÃ¹ il rencontra une rrmitresse et deux amis, qui projetÃ¨rent avec lui un vqvage Ã Bangkok . Plus lurd, le requÃ©rant et sa maflresse vinrent Ã Copenhague . Il fut arrÃªtÃ© Ã l'uÃ©roport m-ec ses deux amis, porteurs de plus de 200 g. d'hÃ©rÃ´tne . En novembre 1979, le requÃ©rant fut condamnÃ© Ã quatre ans de prison pour cmnplicitÃ© de contrebande de stupÃ©fiants et les autoritÃ©s danoises compÃ©temes dÃ©cidÃ¨rent son expulsion, Ã exÃ©cuter Ã (a fin de sa peine.
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant se plaint de son expulsion du Danemark . La Commission rappelle tout d'abord avoir Ã plusieurs reprises dÃ©clarÃ© que la Convention ne garantit en tant que tel aucun droit pour un Ã©tranger d'entrer ou de rÃ©sider dans un pays donnÃ©, ni le droit de ne pas @tre expulsÃ© d'un pays donnÃ© (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 et NÂ° 5269/74, Recueil de dÃ©cisions 39, p . 104, DÃ©cisions et rapports 12, p . 197) . Cependant, le requÃ©rant soutient Ã©galement qu'en raison de son expulsion, il a Ã©tÃ© portÃ© atteinte Ã son droit au respect de la vie familiale, puisqu'il a dÃ» quitter son Ã©pouse danoise, qui attend un enfant de lui . Certes, l'article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention stipule que . toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . . La Commission a constamment dÃ©clarÃ© que l'expulsion d'une personne d'un pays oÃ¹ vivent des membres proches de sa famille peut Ã©quivaloir Ã une violation de l'article 8 et, dans un certain nombre de cas, la Commission a examinÃ© des situations oÃ¹, comme en l'espÃ¨ce, une personne mariÃ©e Ã©tait obligÃ©e de quitter un Etat oÃ¹ elle vivait avec son conjoint, ressortissant d u
pays qui ordonne l'expulsion (voir, par exemple . RequÃªte NÂ° 80 11/77, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 12, p . 200) . Cependant, aux termes de l'article 8 . paragraphe 2, de la Convention, il peut y avoir ingÃ©rence dans les droils que garantit le paragraphe premier de cette disposition 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 . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Comntission admet que l'expulsion du requÃ©rant du Danemark a constituÃ© une atteinte Ã sa vie familiale . Cependant, vu la gravitÃ© de l'infraction pour laquelle l'intÃ©ressÃ© a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© au Danemark, la Comntission a la conviction que l'ingÃ©rence incriminÃ©e Ã©tait justifiÃ©e au regard du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8, comme Ã©tant une mesure conforme Ã la loi et nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre ou Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales .
Il s'ensuit qu'en supposant mÃªme que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition, la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQU Ã TEIRRECEVABLE .
- 242 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/05/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page