Tokens: 3
.
At
the
outset
it
is
important
to
observe
that
the
subject
-
matter
of
the
Court
’s
judgment
is
not
interference
in
family
life
by
the
State
.
Rather
,
the
judgment
goes
to
the
issue
of
the
Contracting
States
’
positive
obligations
regarding
family
life
in
the
sphere
of
immigration
.
If
this
judgment
is
to
be
taken
as
establishing
principled
guidelines
,
it
(
a
)
expands
the
positive
obligations
incumbent
on
the
State
under
the
Convention
in
the
interface
of
immigration
and
family
law
,
(
b
)
thus
shrinks
the
margin
of
appreciation
in
relation
to
family
life
created
during
illegal
overstay
,
(
c
)
virtually
disregards
the
attitude
of
the
applicant
as
a
relevant
matter
of
consideration
,
(
d
)
upgrades
the
obligation
to
take
into
account
the
best
interests
of
the
children
.
However
,
it
must
be
observed
that
most
of
these
seemingly
fundamental
jurisprudential
developments
are
not
reflected
in
the
applicable
general
principles
as
hitherto
formulated
by
the
Court
in
its
case
-
law
and
reiterated
in
the
current
judgment
.
They
appear
only
under
the
surface
in
the
application
of
these
principles
to
the
facts
of
the
case
.
Perhaps
this
judgment
by
the
Grand
Chamber
is
not
to
be
taken
as
establishing
principled
guidelines
?
Such
ambiguity
would
be
a
worrying
signal
for
the
future
performance
of
the
Court
’s
advisory
role
under
Protocol
No
.
16
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O