Information Note on the Court’s case-law 12
November 1999
Baghli v. France - 34374/97
Judgment 30.11.1999 [Section III]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Expulsion of foreigner from the country where he had lived for most of his life: no violation
Facts: The applicant, an Algerian national, came to France in 1967 at the age of two. He thereafter remained in France, except while performing his military service in Algeria between January 1984 and December 1985; his close family also lived in France. He did all his schooling in France and obtained an occupational diploma. Between 1982 and 1992 he had a number of jobs and went on several professional training courses. In 1987 he began a stable relationship with Miss L., a French national. The applicant was arrested and charged after being identified as a drug supplier during an investigation into a drug-trafficking operation. He was convicted and sentenced by a criminal court to fifteen months’ imprisonment, twelve of which were suspended, and was banned from French territory for a period of ten years. On appeal, the court of appeal noted that the offences were serious and increased his sentence to three years, two of them suspended, while upholding the exclusion order. In September 1993 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. In December 1992 the applicant had started a relationship with Miss I. following the death a few months earlier of Miss L. In January 1994 he sought an order rescinding the territorial exclusion order. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention. In June 1994 his application was dismissed. He then lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation through his lawyer, inter alia, on the basis of Article 8. That appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 19 December 1995. The judgment was not served on the applicant; his representative claimed to have received a copy of the judgment only in September 1996. Meanwhile, in May 1994 the applicant was deported to Algeria after serving his prison sentence.
Law: Government’s preliminary objection – the Government did not deny that the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 19 December 1995 had not been served on the applicant, but argued that it was the applicant’s own lack of diligence that had prevented him from finding out about it before June 1996. However, the applicant was in Algeria at the time in very trying conditions that in all likelihood made it very difficult for him to obtain information on the outcome of his case in France. Furthermore, the judgment had not been served on his representative either, even though it was he who had lodged the appeal to the Court of Cassation and the registry of that court had his name and address. For these reasons, and in the absence of irrefutable evidence to the contrary from the Government, the preliminary objection was dismissed.
Article 8: The applicant arrived in France at the age of two and, apart from his military service in Algeria, lived there until the territorial exclusion order was executed in May 1994. He did all his schooling in France and worked there for several years. All his parents, sisters and brothers lived in France. There had therefore been an interference in his private and family life. However, such interference was expressly provided for by law (Article L. 630-1 of the Public Health Code) and pursued the legitimate aims of “prevention of crime” and the “protection of public health and the prevention of disorder”. In addition, the applicant, who was single and had no children, had not shown that he was in close contact with his family in France and his relationship with Miss I. had not started until after the exclusion order had been made at a time when he must have known that his situation was precarious. Unlike the other members of his family, he had kept his Algerian nationality and had shown no desire to become a French national when he had been entitled to. He had never said that he did not speak Arabic and furthermore had done his military service in Algeria and been there on holiday several times. Thus, although most of the applicant’s family and social ties were in France, he had retained links with his country of birth that went beyond mere nationality. His drug-trafficking offence was a serious breach of public order and endangered the health of others. The authorities were entitled to take a very firm line with drug traffickers. In the instant case, the ten-year exclusion order was therefore not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
Conclusion: no violation (5 votes to 2).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy