Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 85
April 2006
Cömert v. Denmark (dec.) - 14474/03
Decision 10.4.2006 [Section V]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Expulsion following conviction:inadmissible
Facts: The applicant, a Turkish national, lived in Turkey until he moved to Denmark at the age of thirteen. He later married a Turkish national, who remained in Turkey; the first two of their three children were born there. The applicant’s wife and first two children joined the applicant in Denmark several years later. A third child was born to them in Denmark. In 2002 the applicant was convicted of having sexually abused his elder daughter by resorting to violence and threats over a four-year period; he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to be expelled from Denmark forever. The applicant’s wife divorced the applicant in Denmark in 2003 and was granted custody of the children; the applicant did not seek access to any of the children. Divorce proceedings under Turkish law are still pending. The applicant was expelled to Turkey in 2004 immediately after his release.
Inadmissible under Article 8 – At the time of the expulsion order, the applicant’s wife, his three children, his father and three of his siblings lived in Denmark. Accordingly, the expulsion order interfered with the applicant’s family life. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim. Despite the considerable time spent by the applicant in Denmark, he entered Denmark at the age of thirteen and thus spent most of his childhood and youth in Turkey. His situation was therefore not comparable to that of a second generation immigrant. Moreover, he was well acquainted with the Turkish language and culture, and almost every year he spent his vacations in Turkey, where at the relevant time his mother and five of his siblings resided. Subsequently his father and a brother left Denmark and returned to Turkey. In view of the divorce proceedings, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention the applicant’s “family-life” can no longer relate to his ex-wife. The expulsion of the applicant has not so far prevented him from seeing his two youngest children, who have visited him in Turkey; there are no elements in the case which suggest that in the future he cannot continue to maintain a family life, at least with his son, who in any event comes of age in two years. Finally, there can be no doubt that the expulsion order was based on a crime which was not only serious, but also of such a nature that the applicant himself, by committing it, significantly injured his family life. Manifestly ill-founded.
© 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