Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
April 1996
Boughanemi v. France - 22070/93
Judgment 24.4.1996
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Deportation of a Tunisian national convicted of a criminal offence, whose parents and ten brothers and sisters live lawfully in France and who had recognised as his the child of woman of French nationality, with whom he had cohabited: no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
A.Paragraph 1
Doubts as to reality of family ties between applicant and mother of child not wholly unfounded. However, that did not justify a finding that applicant had no private and family life in France. Applicant had recognised the child and the concept of family life on which Article 8 is based embraces, even where there is no cohabitation, the tie between a parent and his or her child, regardless of whether or not the latter is legitimate. Although that tie may be broken by subsequent events, that can only happen in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances in the present case. In addition, parents and ten brothers and sisters legally resident in France.
Deportation had had effect of separating him from family and child, and therefore amounted to interference with right guaranteed under Article 8.
B.Paragraph 2
1."In accordance with the law"
Not contested.
2.Legitimate aim
Prevention of disorder and crime.
3."Necessary in a democratic society"
Reiteration of case-law: it is for the Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right to control entry and residence of aliens and notably to order expulsion of aliens convicted of criminal offences.
Applicant had arrived in France at age of 8 and had been legally resident there for twenty years and subsequently had lived there as an illegal immigrant for six years. He had had most of his schooling there. His parents and ten brothers and sisters lived there and he had cohabited there with a woman of French nationality, whose child he had recognised.
However, applicant had kept his Tunisian nationality and had apparently never manifested a wish to become French. It was probable that he had retained links with Tunisia that went beyond mere fact of nationality. In addition circumstances in applicant's case different from those in cases of Moustaquim v. Belgium, Beldjoudi v. France and Nasri v. France. Above all, deportation had been decided after applicant had been sentenced to almost four years' imprisonment, non-suspended, three for living on earnings of prostitution with aggravating circumstances.
Conclusion: no violation (seven votes to two).
© 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