Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
September 1997
Mehemi v. France - 25017/94
Judgment 26.9.1997
Article 8
Expulsion
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Enforcement of order for permanent exclusion from French territory of convicted Algerian national whose parents and four brothers and sisters were lawfully resident in France and who was the father of three minor children having French nationality: 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.]
I.ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Paragraph 1
Applicant had been born in France, had lived there more than thirty years prior to enforcement of permanent exclusion order, and his parents and four brothers and sisters lived there – he was the father of three minor children of French nationality whose mother he had married.
Measure in issue amounted to interference with exercise of applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life.
B.Paragraph 2
1.“In accordance with the law”
Not contested.
2.Legitimate aim
Prevention of disorder or crime.
3.“Necessary in a democratic society”
Reference to Court’s case-law: obligation for Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising right to control the entry and residence of aliens – included power to order expulsion of aliens convicted of criminal offences.
Applicant had been born in France, had received all his schooling there and had lived there until age of 33 – his parents and his four brothers and sisters lived there, as did his wife and three minor children, who had been born there and had French nationality – not established that he had links with Algeria other than his nationality.
On the other hand, fact that in 1989 applicant had participated in conspiracy to import a large quantity of hashish counted heavily against him – nevertheless, above all in view of fact that permanent exclusion order had separated him from his minor children and his wife, measure in question was disproportionate to aims pursued.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: judgment constituted sufficient compensation.
B.Order requested by applicant: Court lacked jurisdiction.
C.Costs and expenses: assessed on equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sum for costs and expenses (unanimously).
© 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