Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92
December 2006
Sayoud v. France (dec.) - 70456/01
Decision 7.12.2006 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Deportation to Algeria, pursuant to a temporary exclusion order imposed for large scale drug-trafficking, of a man who had been living in France for thirty-five years and is the father of two children:admissible
Respect for correspondence
Inadvertent opening by prison authorities of letter from the Court to a prisoner: inadmissible
Article 34
Victim
Annulment of an exclusion order accompanying a prison sentence following the applicant's deportation and residence abroad for a lengthy period: preliminary objection dismissed
The applicant was found guilty of drug trafficking in a case concerning several dozen kilos of cannabis resin, and was sentenced to a customs fine, a six-year term of imprisonment and a five-year exclusion order.
The applicant was born in Algeria and had arrived in France at the age of fifteen. At the time his sentence was handed down he had been living there for thirty-five years and had two children born in France.
The applicant was deported to Algeria in November 2002 under the temporary exclusion order. Before it was due to expire, the exclusion order was rescinded as of right under the 2003 Immigration Control, Residence of Aliens and Nationality Act. The relevant decision was taken in January 2005; in May 2006 the applicant was finally given permission to return to France. In October 2006 the French authorities issued him with a national identity card based on a “certificate of French nationality” stating that he had automatically retained French nationality when Algeria, the country where he had lived prior to his arrival in France, had gained independence in 1962.
In his application lodged with the Court in 2000, before his deportation, the applicant complained that the temporary exclusion order imposed on him infringed his right to respect for his private and family life.
Admissible under Article 8 (private and family life) in respect of the applicant’s deportation to Algeria under the temporary exclusion order, after the Government’s preliminary objections had been dismissed.
Article 35(1) – The applicant had exhausted domestic remedies, as he had lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation against his conviction and had complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the exclusion order imposed on him.
Article 34 – In the French Government’s view, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8, as the exclusion order of which he had complained had been rescinded as of right.
The Court stressed that the order excluding the applicant from French territory had been enforced and that the applicant had been prohibited from re-entering the country for approximately three years and four months. After the order had been rescinded, the applicant had experienced great difficulty in returning to France; despite his repeated requests to that effect, he had been issued with a visa only one year and three months after the decision rescinding the exclusion order. On his return to France he had obtained only a temporary residence permit, whereas he had previously held a ten‑year renewable permit. The Government had not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that the applicant’s residence status in France was no longer uncertain. Above all, the applicant had been barred from re-entering the country for a long time.
In short, the fact that the exclusion order imposed on the applicant had been rescinded as of right amounted to an acknowledgment in substance by the respondent State that there had been a violation of Article 8. The applicant’s residence status in France had now been resolved as he held a “certificate of nationality” and a national identity card. However, in the absence of any compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of his exclusion from France for over three years, he had not obtained full “redress” for the violation.
See Achour v. France, no. 67335/01, decision of 1 March 2004, Information Note No. 64.
Inadmissible under Article 8 (respect for correspondence): Only one of the letters sent by the Court to the applicant while he was in prison had been opened, in error, by the prison authorities. There had been no deliberate intent on the part of the authorities to infringe the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence nor had there been any recurrences suggestive of a malfunctioning of the postal service that could indisputably be said to constitute an interference: manifestly ill-founded.
See Touroude v. France, no. 35502/97, decision of 3 October 2000, Information Note No. 23.
© 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