AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 30997/96
by A. H.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:
MM. H. DANELIUS, President
S. TRECHSEL
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 29 January 1996
by A. H. against Switzerland and registered on 12 April 1996 under file
No. 30997/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Lebanese citizen born in 1958, is a painter
residing in Tagelswangen. Before the Commission he is represented by
his wife, Yvonne Hoteit.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In 1989 the applicant entered Switzerland where under different
names he filed various requests for asylum. In 1991, after the Federal
Office for Refugees (Bundesamt für das Flüchtlingswesen) had dismissed
the requests, the applicant was expelled to Lebanon.
On 12 November 1991 the applicant married his present wife, a
Swiss citizen, in Lebanon. Thereafter, he obtained a residence permit
(Aufenthaltsbewilligung) from the Canton of Zurich. On 2 March 1992
the applicant returned to Switzerland.
On 28 July 1993 the applicant was remanded in custody on
suspicion of having contravened the Narcotics Act
(Betäubungsmittelgesetz). On 15 April 1994 the Zurich District Court
(Bezirksgericht) sentenced the applicant to two and a half years'
imprisonment on account of various contraventions of the Narcotics Act,
in particular of having dealt with heroin and cocaine. On 27 March
1995 he was released on probation.
Meanwhile, on 16 February 1994 the Police Directorate
(Polizeidirektion) of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the applicant's
request for a prolongation of the residence permit.
An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Government
(Regierungsrat) of the Canton of Zurich on 5 April 1995. In its
decision, the Government found, inter alia, that doubts arose as to the
intensity of the applicant's marriage since he himself had admitted
having had a relationship with another person. Moreover, the
applicant's parents and his seven brothers and sisters lived in
Lebanon. The applicant had married his wife in Lebanon, and she had
visited his family there. His wife could be expected to follow the
applicant, particularly since he had explained that he wished to travel
to a third country.
The applicant and his wife filed an administrative law appeal
(Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht)
dismissed on 25 July 1995. In its decision, the Court relied on
Section 7 para. 1 and Section 10 para. 1 subpara. (a) of the Federal
Act on the Residence and Domicile of Aliens (Bundesgesetz über
Aufenthalt und Niederlassung der Ausländer; see below, Relevant
domestic law). The Court considered that there was a considerable
public interest in removing the applicant from Switzerland as he had
committed serious offences, and as there was a danger that he would
commit new offences. The Court continued:
"he has not been long in Switzerland. After the applicant was lawfully permitted to stay here in view of his marriage, he committed a criminal offence already after eleven months' residence. Professionally he is not particularly integrated; his criminal convictions did not facilitate this. Both applicants have themselves stated that they had hardly any close contacts in Switzerland with the exception of the wife's family members. The possibility to be supported by a family is also open to her in Lebanon, as the applicant's family lives there. Thus, only the applicant's relationship with his wife is an important connection with Switzerland. Even if she could support him, it must nevertheless be considered that his marriage did not stop him from committing criminal offences. A new element is the fact that the second applicant is in her late pregnancy, i.e. she expects a child from her husband in early July 1995. It is unknown whether the child has meanwhile been born. The personal relations with Switzerland may thereby have become somewhat more dense, but on balance it is not decisive. ... The pregnancy and the birth of a child, respectively, may increase the difficulties of a departure, but they do not render it impossible. For instance, it is not excluded that the second applicant, before following her husband abroad, waits until she has recovered from birth. For the rest, the cantonal authorities can take these circumstances into consideration when determining the date of departure, which must in any event be newly decided. Even if the second applicant could not be expected to leave Switzerland, this would not in the end decisively affect the balancing of interests. The first applicant should already earlier on have considered that he bears a responsibility towards his wife and any - at that time future - children." "(es handelt) sich nicht um eine lange hiesige Anwesenheit. Nachdem der Beschwerdeführer sich infolge seiner Heirat rechtmässig hier aufhalten durfte, wurde er bereits nach nur elfmonatiger Anwesenheit straffällig. Beruflich scheint er nicht fest integriert zu sein, wobei er sich dies durch seine Straffälligkeit auch nicht erleichtert hat. Beide Beschwerdeführer haben sodann selbst ausgesagt, in der Schweiz abgesehen von den Familienmitgliedern der Ehefrau kaum enge Kontakte zu pflegen. Die Möglichkeit zu familiärem Rückhalt eröffnet sich für sie aber auch im Libanon, lebt dort doch die Familie des Beschwerdeführers. Somit stellt einzig die Beziehung zur Ehefrau einen wichtigen Bezugspunkt des Beschwerdeführers zur Schweiz dar. Selbst wenn sie ihm eine Stütze sein könnte, ist doch zu beachten, dass ihn auch die Ehe nicht an seiner Delinquenz gehindert hat. Neu kommt nunmehr dazu, dass die Beschwerdeführerin hochschwanger ist beziehungsweise auf Anfang Juli 1995 von ihrem Mann ein Kind erwartet hat. Ob dieses inzwischen geboren wurde, ist nicht bekannt. Die persönlichen Beziehungen zur Schweiz mögen sich dadurch etwas verdichtet haben, entscheidend ins Gewicht fällt dies aber auch nicht ... Die Schwangerschaft beziehungsweise die Geburt eines Kindes mögen die Schwierigkeiten einer Ausreise vergrössern, sie verunmöglichen sie aber nicht. So ist nicht ausgeschlossen, dass die Beschwerdeführerin, bevor sie dem Ehemann ins Ausland nachfolgt, noch so lange zuwartet, bis sie sich von der Geburt erholt hat. Im übrigen können die kantonalen Behörden diesen Umständen allenfalls auch bei der Festlegung der Ausreisefrist, die gemäss dem angefochtenen Entscheid ohnehin neu zu bestimmen ist, Rechnung tragen. Selbst wenn eine Ausreise der Beschwerdeführerin aber unzumutbar wäre, würde dies die Interessenabwägung im Ergebnis nicht entscheidend beeinflussen. Der Beschwerdeführer hätte sich bereits früher darüber klar werden können, dass er seiner Frau und seinen allfälligen - aus damaliger Sicht künftigen - Kindern gegenüber Verantwortung trägt." On 28 July 1995 the applicant's wife gave birth to a child, a boy, at Winterthur in Switzerland. The applicant's request for reopening the Federal Court proceedings was dismissed by the Federal Court on 10 November 1995. B. Relevant domestic law Article 7 para. 1 of the Federal Act on Residence and Domicile of Aliens states: