AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25036/94
by Z. A.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 18 October 1994, the following members being present:
MM. H. DANELIUS, Acting President
S. TRECHSEL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 11 July 1994 by
Z. A. against Switzerland and registered on 31 August 1994 under file
No. 25036/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant, born in 1965, is a Slovenian citizen. When filing
his application he resided in Berne in Switzerland. Before the
Commission he is represented by Ms. Suzanne Lehmann, a lawyer
practising in Basel.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
I.
The applicant resided in Switzerland for three months in 1986 and
1987. On 25 February 1988 he married a Swiss citizen as a result of
which he obtained a residence permit.
On 26 February 1988 a penal order was served on the applicant
sentencing him to a fine of 300 SFr for having driven a car without a
driving licence and for breach of domicile (Hausfriedensbruch).
After quarrels with his wife and a period of detention on remand,
the applicant returned to Yugoslavia in 1990.
On 21 September 1990 the Federal Office for Aliens' Affairs
(Bundesamt für Ausländerfragen) refused the applicant entry into
Switzerland. However, it annulled this order on 22 October 1990 when
the applicant's wife declared her wish to resume marital life. The
applicant then returned to Switzerland.
II.
On 18 April 1991 the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Berne
convicted the applicant inter alia of repeated and qualified theft
displaying a particular danger (fortgesetzter, qualifizierter Diebstahl
unter Offenbarung besonderer Gefährlichkeit), of repeated and
continuing damage to property (wiederholte und fortgesetzte
Sachbeschädigung) and of receiving stolen goods (Hehlerei). He was
sentenced to six and a half months' imprisonment suspended on
probation.
On 11 June 1991 the President of a Berne District Court
(Gerichtspräsident) sentenced the applicant to 15 days' imprisonment
suspended on probation and to a fine of 800 SFr for drunken driving
(Fahren in angetrunkenem Zustand).
On 27 October 1992 the Berne Criminal District Court (Strafamts-
gericht) convicted the applicant inter alia of contraventions of the
Narcotics Act (Betäubungsmittelgesetz) and sentenced him to 42 months'
imprisonment and expulsion from Switzerland for six years, the latter
suspended on probation.
On 2 February 1994 the President of the Erlach District Court
sentenced the applicant to seven days' imprisonment for a contravention
of the Narcotics Act while serving his prison sentence.
On 11 March 1994 the applicant was released from prison on
probation after having served two thirds of his prison sentence.
III.
Meanwhile, on 27 November 1992 the Aliens' Police (Fremdenpoli-
zei) of the Canton of Berne refused to prolong his residence permit and
ordered his expulsion after his release from imprisonment.
An appeal against this decision was dismissed on 25 January 1994
by the Police Directorate (Polizeidirektion) of the Canton of Berne
which relied on Articles 7 and 10 para. 1 of the Federal Act on the
Residence and Domicile of Aliens (Bundesgesetz über Aufenthalt und
Niederlassung der Ausländer, see below, Relevant domestic law).
The applicant's administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichts-
beschwerde) was dismissed by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-
gericht) of the Canton of Berne on 30 March 1994.
On 28 April 1994 the applicant filed a further administrative law
appeal which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) dismissed on 2 June
1994.
In its decision the Court found that Article 7 para. 1 of the
Federal Act on the Residence and Domicile of Aliens did not grant
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 on the Residence and Domicile of Aliens.
The decision noted that the applicant had been convicted of serious
offences and then continued:
"In respect of such serious contraventions, from which a ruthless behaviour transpires, the Aliens' Police has a weighty interest, for the protection of Swiss order and security and for the security of others, in keeping the applicant away from Switzerland. This interest must be balanced against the applicant's personal and family interests in staying in Switzerland. When balancing these conflicting interests it must first be considered that the applicant is married to a Swiss citizen. Nevertheless, someone who, like the applicant, has seriously contravened the domestic legal order and thereby has frequently had to be punished, once even with several years' imprisonment, has in principle to accept that he must leave Switzerland and cannot lead his marital life here. This also applies, even in regard to Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention, when the spouse cannot be expected to follow the husband abroad ... The balancing of interests would only lead to another conclusion if there were special circumstances, for instance if the foreigner, after many years of orderly residence, had well established roots in Switzerland and had committed an isolated crime or offence. However, it would have to be a real exception. Such special circumstances do not transpire here ..." "Bei derart schweren Verfehlungen, die auf eine rücksichtslose Haltung schliessen lassen, besteht ein gewichtiges fremdenpolizeiliches Interesse daran, den Beschwerdeführer zum Schutze der schweizerischen Ordnung und Sicherheit sowie zum Schutze anderer von der Schweiz fernzuhalten. Diesem Interesse sind die persönlichen und familiären Interessen des Beschwerdeführers an einem Ver- bleib in der Schweiz gegenüberzustellen. Bei der Interessenabwägung ist vorab zu berücksichti- gen, dass der Beschwerdeführer mit einer Schweizerin ver- heiratet ist. Wer jedoch, wie er, in schwerer Weise gegen die hiesige Rechtsordnung verstossen hat und deshalb mehr- mals bestraft werden musste, einmal zu einer mehrjährigen Freiheitsstrafe, hat grundsätzlich in Kauf zu nehmen, dass er die Schweiz verlassen muss und die Ehe nicht mehr hier leben kann. Dies gilt, auch unter dem Gesichtspunkt von Art. 8 Ziff. 2 EMRK, selbst dann, wenn der Ehefrau nicht zugemutet werden kann, ihm ins Ausland nachzuziehen ... Zu einem anderen Ergebnis kann die Interessenabwägung höch- stens dann führen, wenn besondere Umstände vorliegen, etwa wenn der Ausländer nach langjähriger ordnungsgemässer Anwe- senheit in der Schweiz fest verwurzelt ist und sich ein vereinzeltes Verbrechen oder Vergehen hat zuschulden kommen lassen. Es muss aber ein eigentlicher Ausnahmefall vorlie- gen. Solche besonderen Umstände sind hier nicht erkennbar ..." The Court then recalled that the applicant had only briefly resided in Switzerland during short periods in 1986 an 1987 whereupon he entered the country in 1988. However, shortly thereafter he commenced committing offences and spent a longer time in prison, and in 1990 he spent some months in Yugoslavia. He could not at all therefore be considered as having been integrated in Switzerland. Finally, insofar as the applicant referred to his problems with alcohol the Federal Court found that it could not consider this point as it had not been raised before the previous instance. IV. The Aliens' Police of the Canton of Berne has ordered the applicant to leave Switzerland before 15 July 1994. It does not appear that the applicant has in the meantime left Switzerland. B. Relevant domestic law 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 or have prolonged, a residence permit ... This right ceases to exist if there is a ground for expulsion." "Der ausländische Ehegatte eines Schweizer Bürgers hat Anspruch auf Erteilung und Verlängerung der Aufenthalts- bewilligung ... Der Anspruch erlischt, wenn ein Auswei- sungsgrund vorliegt." Article 10 para. 1 of this Act states: "A foreigner may be expelled from Switzerland ... only if: