AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25918/94
by Aliriza ALTUNTAS
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 1 December 1994
by Aliriza ALTUNTAS against Austria and registered on 13 December 1994
under file No. 25918/94;
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 is a Turkish citizen, born in 1977 in
Lustenau/Austria and was living in Austria when he lodged the present
application. He is represented by Mr. W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising
in Bregenz.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
The facts, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows:
In September 1992 the applicant travelled to Austria with his
father.
On 24 February 1993 his request for a visa (Sichtvermerk) was
rejected.
On the same day the competent authorities
(Bezirkshauptmannschaft) at Dornbirn issued an expulsion order against
the applicant in accordance with Section 17 para. 1 of the Aliens Act
(Fremdengesetz) which provides for the expulsion of aliens unlawfully
within the territory of the state. The applicant was informed about
his right to lodge an appeal which would however not have suspensive
effect ex officio.
It is stated in the expulsion order that the applicant's mother
and his five sisters/brothers were living in Turkey. Only his father
was authorised to live in Austria where he had a job. When applying
for a visa for the applicant his father however had not advanced any
arguments justifying the granting of a residence permit in accordance
with Section 19 of the Aliens Act. As he had only been living for
about five months in Austria and as the rest of his family was living
in Turkey it could not be considered that he was integrated into
Austria and that his ties to Austria were stronger than those to
Turkey.
The applicant's appeal (Berufung) against the decision of
24 February 1993 was rejected by the Directorate of the Security
Service of Vorarlberg (Sicherheitsdirektion) on 29 September 1993 after
having granted suspensive effect to the appeal. This decision was
mainly based on the fact that the applicant had entered the territory
of Austria without a visa and that the main part of his family lived
in Turkey.
The applicant then brought a complaint with the Administrative
Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) which rejected it on 14 April 1994.
Insofar as the applicant had argued that an expulsion order could
only be given within a time-limit of one month after the illegal entry
the court noted that such a time-limit was only provided for when the
expulsion grounds stated in Section 17 para. 2 of the Aliens Act
applied not however when an expulsion was based on para. 1 of that
Section. The court furthermore considered that the illegal stay of a
foreigner in Austria affected public order and therefore the
applicant's expulsion was necessary in a democratic society there being
no reason to make an exception on account of close family relations.
The applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint which was
however rejected by the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)
on 2 July 1993 as offering no prospects of success.
B. Relevant Domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act read as follows:
[Translation]
"s.17. Deportation. (1) Aliens who are not legally resident in
the Federal territory shall be served with a deportation order;
account must be taken of the provisions of s. 19 when applying
such a measure."
(2) Aliens may be deported on notice in the interests of public
policy where they:
1. have been convicted by a criminal court of a crime of
intent committed within a month of entry, even where
an appeal is still possible; or,
2. within a month of entry, are found in the act of
committing a crime of intent or are credibly accused,
immediately after a crime of intent has been
committed, of being the perpetrator thereof, provided
that the offence carries a substantial sentence and
that the competent public prosecutor has made a
declaration of intention to file a report with the
Federal Minister of Justice pursuant to s. 74 of the
Extradition and International Legal Assistance Act; or
3. breach within a month of entry the regulations
concerning prostitution; or
4. cannot within a month of entry show that they possess
the means to maintain themselves; or
5. are within a month of entry found by an organ of the
Labour Inspectorate or the regional or provincial
offices of the Labour Market Service carrying on an
activity which they are not entitled to pursue under
the Aliens' Employment Act; or
6. entered in breach of the provisions of Part 2 hereof
or by evading border controls and are discovered
within a month.
[German]
"§ 17. Ausweisung. (1) Fremde sind mit Bescheid auszuweisen,
wenn sie sich nicht rechtmässig im Bundesgebiet aufhalten; hiebei
ist auf § 19 Bedacht zu nehmen."
(2) Fremde können im Interesse der öffentlichen Ordnung mit
Bescheid ausgewiesen werden, wenn sie
1. von einem Strafgericht wegen einer innerhalb eines
Monates nach der Einreise begangenen Vorsatztat, wenn auch
nicht rechtskräftig, verurteilt wurden oder
2. innerhalb eines Monates nach der Einreise bei der
Begehung einer Vorsatztat auf frischer Tat betreten oder
unmittelbar nach Begehung der Vorsatztat glaubwürdig der
Täterschaft beschuldigt wurden, wenn überdies die strafbare
Handlung mit beträchtlicher Strafe bedroht ist und eine
Erklärung des zuständigen Staatsanwaltes vorliegt, dem
Bundesminister für Justiz gemäss §74 ARHG berichten zu
wollen, oder
3. innerhalb eines Monates nach der Einreise gegen die
Vorshriften, mit denen die Prostitution geregelt ist,
verstossen oder
4. innerhalb eines Monates nach der Einreise den Besitz
der Mittel zu ihrem Unterhalt nicht nachzuweisen vermögen
oder
5. innerhalb, eines Monates nach der Einreise von einem
Organ der Arbeitsinspektorate, der regionalen
Geschäftsstellen oder der Landesgeschäftsstellen des
Arbeitsmarktservice bei einer Beschäftigung betreten
werden, die si nach dem Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz nicht
ausüben hätten dürfen oder
6. unter Missachtung der Bestimmungen des 2. Teiles oder
unter Umgehung der Grenzkontrolle eingereist sind und
binnen einem Monat betreten werden.
[Translation]
"s. 19. Protection of private and family life. Where a
deportation order under s. 17 para. 1 or a residence prohibition
interferes with an alien's private or family life, such a
withdrawal of permission to remain is valid only if it is
strictly necessary in order to achieve the aims laid down in
Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"
[German]
"§. 19. Schutz des Privat- und Familienlebens. Würde durch
eine Ausweisung gemäss § 17 Abs. 1 oder ein Aufenthaltsverbot in
das Privat- oder Familienleben des Fremden eingegriffen, so ist
ein solcher Entzug der Aufenthaltsberechtigung nur zulässig, wenn
dies zur Erreichung der im Art 8 Abs. 2 der Konvention zum
Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten genannten Ziele
dringend geboten ist."
[Translation]
"s. 20. Invalidity of a residence prohibition. (1) A residence
prohibition shall not be issued if its effects on the alien and
his family's situation outweigh the adverse consequences of not
taking such a measure. In weighing the above factors, the
following circumstances shall be taken into account:
1. the period of residence and the extent to which the
alien or members of his family are integrated into
society;
2. the strength of family or other ties.
(2) In addition to the foregoing, a residence prohibition shall
not be issued against an alien who could have acquired
nationality under s. 10 (1) of the Nationality Act of 1985
BGB1. No. 311 before the relevant facts took place, unless
a residence prohibition were to be based on s. 18 (2) 1 on
the ground that the alien has been convicted of an offence
punishable by more than five years' imprisonment."
[German]
"§20 Unzulässigkeit eines Aufenthaltsverbotes. (1) Ein
Aufenthaltsverbot darf nicht erlassen werden, wenn seine
Auswirkungen auf die Lebenssituation des Fremden und seiner
Familie schwerer wiegen als die nachteiligen Folgen der
Abstandnahme von seiner Erlassung. Bei dieser Abwägung is auf
folgende Umstände Bedacht zu nehmen:
1 die Dauer des Aufenthaltes und das Ausmass der
Integration des Fremden oder seiner
Familienangehörigen;
2 die Intensität des familiären oder sonstigen
Bindungen.
(2) Ein Aufenthaltsverbot darf ausserdem nicht erlassen werden,
wenn dem Fremden vor Verwirklichung des massgeblichen
Sachverhaltes gemäss § 10 Abs. 1 des
Staatsbürgerschaftsgesetzes 1985, BGB1. Nr. 311, die
Staatsbürgerschaft verliehen hätte werden können, es sei
denn, das Aufenthaltsverbot wäre auf § 18 Abs. 2 Z 1 zu
gründen, weil der Fremde wegen einer mit mehr als fünf
Jahren Freiheitssrafe bedrohten strafbaren Handlung
verurteilt worden ist."
[Translation]
"s. 21 Period of validity of a residence prohibition. (1) A
residence prohibition can be for unlimited duration in the cases
set forth in s. 18 (2) 1 and 5, otherwise it is only valid for
a maximum period of ten years.
(2) In establishing the period of validity of a residence
prohibition account shall be taken of the circumstances
relevant to its issue. Time starts running from when the
residence prohibition becomes enforceable."
[German]
"§ 21. Gültigkeitsdauer des Aufenthaltsverbotes. (1) Das Augen-
thaltsverbot kann in den Fällen des § 18 Abs. 2 Z 1 und 5 auch
unbefristet, sonst nur für die Dauer von höchstens zehn Jahren
erlassen werden.
(2) Bei der Festetzung der Gültigkeitsdauer des Aufen-
thaltsverbotes ist auf die für seine Erlassung massgeblichen
Umstände Bedacht zu nehmen. Die Frist beginnt mit Eintritt der
Durchsetzbarkeit zu laufen."
COMPLAINTS
The applicant argues that the text of Section 17 of the Aliens
Act is misleading for lay-men, giving the impression that in all cases
expulsion can only be ordered within a time-limit of one month while,
according to the official interpretation, the one month time-limit only
applies to the cases listed in para. 2 of the Section. He therefore
considers that the Section lacks the necessary precision and
foreseeability as required in the case-law of the European Court of
Human Rights. He further submits that there is a contradiction between
the interpretation of Article 17 of the Aliens Act and the present case
as according to that interpretation there is no time-limit at all for
expulsion measures while Section 20 para. 2 provides that a resident's
permit cannot be denied to a person having lived 10 years on Austrian
territory.
Finally the applicant considers that his expulsion is not
necessary as he is living in Austria without causing any trouble. He
has never been prosecuted criminally and is disturbing nobody. The
applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that his threatened removal from Austrian
territory infringes his right to respect for his family and private
life.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as relevant:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life...
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 and freedoms of others."
The Commission recalls according to its established case-law that
while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee
a right to enter or remain in a particular country issues may arise
where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close
relatives reside (see eg. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9, p. 219;
No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160, and No. 9285/81, Dec.
6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205).
However, the Commission notes that the State's obligation to
admit to its territory aliens who are relatives of persons resident
there will vary according to the circumstances of the case. The Court
has held that Article 8 (Art. 8) does not impose a general obligation
on States to respect the choice of residence of a married couple or to
accept the non-national spouse for settlement in that country (Eur.
Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985,
Series A no. 94, p. 94, para. 68). The Commission considers that this
applies to situations where members of a family, other than spouses,
are non-nationals. Whether removal or exclusion of a family member
from a Contracting State is compatible with the requirements of Article
8 (Art. 8) will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which
family life is effectively ruptured, whether there are insurmountable
obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of
one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control
(eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of
public order (eg. serious or persistent offenses) weighing in favour
of exclusion (see eg. Nos. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205 and
11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87 unpublished).
The Commission first notes that when travelling to Austria with
his father the applicant was already 17 years old and has not indicated
any particular reasons showing a necessity for his living with his
father in Austria instead with the rest of his family staying behind
in Turkey. It can in these particular circumstances appear
questionable whether the threatened expulsion constitutes an
interference with family life.
However, even assuming the existence of family life the
Commission recalls, as regards the question whether the interference
complained of was "necessary in a democratic society", that the
Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing
whether such a need for an interference exists, but it goes hand in
hand with European supervision (see, Eur. Court H.R., Berrehab judgment
of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138, p. 15, para. 128; Funke judgment of
25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p.24, para. 55).
The Commission notes that the Austrian authorities based their
decision on the fact that the applicant entered the country illegally,
i.e. without a visa. They also had regard to his family situation, in
particular the fact that his mother and brothers/sisters were living
in Turkey and that there were no exceptional circumstances entitling
him to stay.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that there are
relevant and sufficient reasons for the challenged decisions. Weighing
the applicant's interests in pursuing his family life with his father
in Austria, and the public interests at stake, the Commission finds
that the Austrian authorities did not overstep the margin of
appreciation left to them.
In this respect the Commission had particular regard to the fact
that the applicant only came to Austria at the age of seventeen and
that most members of his close family remained in Turkey.
Consequently, the interference with the applicant's right to
respect for his private and family life was justified under Article 8
para. 2 (Art. 8-2) in that it can reasonably be considered "necessary
in a democratic society.... in the interest of the economic well-being
of the country" and "for the prevention of disorder and crime".
It follows that the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy