AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25037/94
by Claudia and Hasan MARHAN
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 May 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
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 July 1994 by
Claudia and Hasan Marhan against Switzerland and registered on
31 August 1994 under file No. 25037/94;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
20 December 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicants on 13 February 1995;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
The first applicant is a Swiss citizen born in 1964. The second
applicant is a Turkish citizen born in 1968. Both applicants reside
at Aesch in Switzerland. Before the Commission they are represented
by Mr. Andreas Brunner, a lawyer practising in Reinach.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
On 22 July 1987 the second applicant entered Switzerland and
applied for asylum.
On 2 December 1990 the applicants became engaged.
On 27 February 1991 the second applicant was arrested on
suspicion of having contravened the Narcotics Act (Betäubungsmittelge-
setz) and remanded in custody.
On 11 April 1991 the applicant's request for asylum was
dismissed.
On 18 July 1991, while the second applicant was in detention, the
applicants got married.
On 15 August 1991 the Criminal Court (Strafgericht) of the Canton
Basel-Landschaft convicted the second applicant of contraventions of
the Narcotics Act and sentenced him to 27 months' imprisonment.
On 5 February 1992 the second applicant applied to the Aliens'
Police of the Canton Basel-Landschaft (Fremdenpolizei des Kantons
Basel-Landschaft) for a residence permit. On 17 February 1992 the
Aliens' Police refused this request and ordered his expulsion after his
release from imprisonment.
The second applicant was released on probation on 26 August 1992
after having served two thirds of his prison sentence.
On 26 January 1993 the applicants' joint appeal (Beschwerde)
against the decision of 5 February 1992 was granted by the Government
(Regierungsrat) of the Canton Basel-Landschaft which found that
expulsion was an inadequate measure. The case was referred back to the
Aliens' Police who were ordered to grant a residence permit to the
second applicant.
The Aliens' Police then intended to issue a residence permit to
the first applicant. However, on 11 August 1993 the Federal Office for
Aliens' Affairs (Bundesamt für Ausländerfragen) refused to give its
consent thereto and ordered the second applicant's expulsion from
Switzerland for a period of five years.
On 22 April 1994 the Federal Department of Justice and Police
(Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) dismissed the
applicants' joint appeal against the decision of the Federal Office for
Aliens' Affairs.
The applicants' administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichts-
beschwerde) was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on
30 June 1994.
In its decision the Federal Court found that Article 7 para. 1
of the Federal Act on the Residence and Domicile of Aliens (Bundes-
gesetz über Aufenthalt und Niederlassung der Ausländer, see below,
Relevant domestic law) did not grant to foreign spouses of Swiss
citizens a right to a residence permit in Switzerland if there was a
ground for expulsion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Federal
Act. Nevertheless, expulsion could only be ordered if it was
proportionate to the circumstances of the case. In balancing the
interests account had to be taken inter alia of the seriousness of the
offences committed, the detrimental effects on the second applicant and
his family, and the period of time which he had spent in Switzerland.
The decision continues:
"The interest of (the first applicant) in being able to live her marriage in Switzerland is eminent. She suffers from epilepsy and draws half an invalidity pension. If she followed her husband to Turkey, she would not only be confronted with social and cultural differences, but she would also have to make sure that adequate medical help would be available when establishing residence there. To this extent, the applicants' residence in the native country of the husband, who is a Kurd, would have to be excluded. Nevertheless, the Department rightly points out that the applicants would not necessarily have to take up residence in a Kurdish area; the wife would also not be obliged to stay in Turkey during the military service of her husband. However, even if (the first applicant's) health problems do not exclude life in Turkey altogether, emigration to that country would nevertheless involve quite considerable difficulties for her. Of course, it must also be considered that the Swiss wife at the time of marriage knew of the misconduct of her foreign partner. She could therefore be expected to have considered that she might not be able to live her marriage in Switzerland ... , even if it must be pointed out that on 2 December 1988 when their engagement was celebrated (the first applicant) knew nothing of (the husband's) offences. On the whole, the applicants have a considerable private interest in living their marriage in Switzerland. This cannot outweigh the public interest in refusing a residence permit. As has already been demonstrated, (the second applicant) has been sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment. The seriousness of his criminal activities can hardly be questioned ... ." "Das Interesse (der Beschwerdeführerin), ihre Ehe in der Schweiz leben zu können, ist gewichtig. Sie leidet an Epilepsie und bezieht ein halbe Rente der Invalidenver- sicherung. Wenn sie ihrem Mann in die Türkei folgen würde, wäre sie nicht nur mit sozialen und kulturellen Unter- schieden konfrontiert, sie müsste überdies bei der Wohn- sitznahme Bedacht darauf nehmen, dass die medizinische Versorgung sichergestellt ist. Insofern dürfte ausser Betracht fallen, dass (die Beschwerdeführer) in der engeren Heimat des Ehemannes, welcher Kurde ist, leben könnten. Das Departement weist allerdings mit Recht darauf hin, dass die Beschwerdeführer nicht notwendigerweise in kurdischem Gebiet Wohnsitz nehmen müssten; ebensowenig ist die Ehefrau gezwungen, sich während des Militärdienstes ihres Mannes in der Türkei aufzuhalten. Auch wenn demnach die gesundheit- lichen Probleme (der Beschwerdeführerin) ein Leben in der Türkei nicht geradezu ausschliessen, so bleibt es doch dabei, dass für sie eine Übersiedlung in dieses Land mit ganz erheblichen Schwierigkeiten verbunden wäre. Zu beachten gilt es freilich auch, dass die schweizerische Ehefrau zum Zeitpunkt der Heirat vom Fehlverhalten ihres ausländischen Partners Kenntnis hatte und sie folglich damit rechnen musste, ihre Ehe nicht in der Schweiz leben zu können ..., wenngleich immerhin festzuhalten ist, dass (die Beschwerdeführerin) von den Delikten noch nichts wusste, als am 2. Dezember 1990 ihre Verlobung gefeiert wurde. Das insgesamt erhebliche private Interesse (der Beschwerdeführer), ihre Ehe in der Schweiz leben zu können, vermag allerdings das öffentliche Interesse an der Verwei- gerung der Aufenthaltsbewilligung nicht aufzuwiegen. Wie schon dargelegt, ist (der Beschwerdeführer) zu einer Frei- heitsstrafe von 27 Monaten verurteilt worden. Die Schwere seiner deliktischen Tätigkeit lässt sich kaum relativieren ... ." The Court also found that even if the second applicant's conduct in prison had been good and he had meanwhile become integrated both professionally and socially, there nevertheless remained the risk of his committing a new offence. The Court concluded that in the present case the interests of public order and security prevailed over the applicants' interest in a residence permit for the second applicant. B. Relevant domestic law 1. Article 7 para. 1 of the Federal Act on the Residence and Domicile of Aliens states: "The foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen has a right to be granted a residence permit or to have it prolonged ... This right no longer exists if there is a ground for expulsion." "Der ausländische Ehegatte eines Schweizer Bürgers hat Anspruch auf Erteilung und Verlängerung der Aufenthaltsbewilligung ... Der Anspruch erlischt, wenn ein Ausweisungsgrund vorliegt." Article 10 para. 1 of the Act states: "A foreigner may be expelled from Switzerland ... only if: