Tokens: 3
.
The
applicant
’s
expulsion
order
received
comprehensive
and
exhaustive
examination
by
the
domestic
courts
in
Norway
,
where
Article
8
was
also
examined
.
The
decision
of
the
Directorate
of
Immigration
was
reviewed
by
the
Immigration
Appeals
Board
(
§
§
14
,
15
and
19
)
,
by
the
Oslo
City
Court
(
§
20
)
,
by
the
Borgarting
High
Court
(
§
§
20
and
21
)
and
by
the
Supreme
Court
(
§
§
22
et
sequens
)
.
At
all
these
levels
the
domestic
courts
took
into
account
and
examined
all
the
submissions
advanced
by
the
parties
for
and
against
the
deportation
order
.
We
find
it
difficult
to
understand
how
and
why
,
given
the
considerable
margin
of
appreciation
given
to
States
in
connection
with
immigration
policy
,
and
the
fact
that
the
domestic
courts
are
best
suited
to
appreciate
the
particular
local
exigencies
on
the
one
hand
and
the
actual
situation
of
the
persons
affected
by
the
authorities
’
decision
on
the
other
hand[1
]
,
the
Court
found
it
necessary
in
this
case
to
interfere
in
the
final
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
and
go
against
it
.
In
our
view
,
the
Supreme
Court
’s
decision
was
based
on
relevant
and
sufficient
reasons
and
considerations
.
It
is
true
that
the
Borgarting
High
Court
quashed
the
Board
’s
decision
of
the
23
February
2007
.
However
it
is
clear
that
this
is
due
to
the
fact
that
Norwegian
law
(
section
29(2
)
of
the
Immigration
Act
1988
,
see
§
26
)
required
a
twofold
and
separate
assessment
of
the
proportionality
or
otherwise
of
the
deportation
measure
–
one
vis
-
à
-
vis
the
foreign
national
to
be
deported
,
and
another
vis
-
à
-
vis
“
the
closest
members
”
of
his
/
her
family
.
This
dichotomy
is
artificial
in
the
light
of
what
must
necessarily
be
a
unitary
concept
of
family
life
in
Article
8
.
In
any
case
,
although
the
Borgarting
High
Court
found
that
the
measure
would
not
be
disproportionate
as
regards
the
applicant
but
that
it
would
be
disproportionate
as
regards
the
children
,
it
nonetheless
“
assumed
that
the
decision
of
the
23
February
2007
was
not
incompatible
with
Article
8
of
the
Convention
.
”
(
§
20
)
.
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
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