Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalget 2019-20
UUI Alm.del Bilag 146
Offentligt
Beskyttelsen af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter Den
Europæiske Me eskerettighedsko ve tio og FN’s ko ve tio er
Juni 2020
MATIAS MEANS
Udlændingestyrelsen
Flygtningenævnet
Udlændingenævnet
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0002.png
Beskyttelsen af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention og
FN’s ko ve tio er
Udlændingestyrelsen, Flygtningenævnet og Udlændingenævnet har udarbejdet et fælles notat og en fælles database
vedrørende Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions (EMRK) artikel 8 og den hertil hørende praksis fra Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedsdomstol (EMD)/Kommissionen samt FN’s konventioner og den hertil hørende praksis fra FN’s komitéer.
Notatet beskriver menneskerettighedsorganernes praksis og indeholder links til de relevante afgørelser, som er hentet fra EMD’s
database HUDOC og FN-komitéernes databaser.
Adgang til HUDOC kan findes her:
HUDOC
Adgang til FN komitéernes databaser kan findes her:
FN’s
Menneskerettighedskomité
FN’s
Børnekomité
FN’s
Handicapkomité
Udgiver:
Udlændingestyrelsen, Flygtningenævnet og Udlændingenævnet
Ansvarlig institution:
Udlændingestyrelsen, Flygtningenævnet og Udlændingenævnet
Copyright:
Udlændingestyrelsen, Flygtningenævnet og Udlændingenævnet
Dato:
30.06.2020
Senest opdateret:
30.06.2020
Henvendelse om publikationen kan ske til:
Udlændingestyrelsen
Farimagsvej 51A
DK-4700 Næstved
Telf.: +45 35 36 66 00
E-mail:
[email protected]
Flygtningenævnet
Adelgade 11-13
DK-1304 København K
Telf.: +45 61 98 37 00
E-mail: [email protected]
eller:
Udlændingenævnet
Adelgade 11-13
DK-1304 København K
Telf.: +45 6198 3800
E-mail:
[email protected]
Side
1
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
Indholdsfortegnelse
1.
2.
Baggrund for udarbejdelse af notatet ................................................................................................................ 4
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention
–
introduktion og grundprincipper ....................................... 5
2.1.
Konventionens ikrafttræden, statens forpligtelser og klageadgang ................................................................. 5
2.2.
Klagebetingelser
–
den individuelle klageadgang ............................................................................................. 5
2.2.1.
Klageren skal være offer for en krænkelse ............................................................................................... 5
2.2.2.
Staten skal være overtræder af konventionen ......................................................................................... 6
2.2.3.
Alle nationale retsmidler skal være udtømt ............................................................................................. 6
2.2.4.
Klagen skal være indgivet senest 6 måneder efter, at alle nationale retsmidler er udtømt .................... 6
2.2.5.
Klagen må ikke være åbenbart grundløs .................................................................................................. 6
2.2.6.
Klagen må ikke være anonym................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.7.
Klagen må ikke have været behandlet ved internationale klageorganer tidligere................................... 7
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
3.
Virkningen af indgivelsen af en klage/afsigelsen af en dom ............................................................................. 7
EMDs anvendelse
af fo elø ige fo a stalt i ge , jf. EMD s p o es egle e t egel
.................................... 7
Det ele a te tidspu kt fo EMD s u de i g
.................................................................................................... 9
Konventionens eksterritoriale virkning ............................................................................................................ 11
EMD s fo tolk i gsp i ippe
.......................................................................................................................... 12
EMRK artikel 8
–
retten til individets privatliv og familieliv ...............................................................................14
3.1.
3.2.
Anvendelsesområdet ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Udgangspunktet
–
indholdet i EMRK artikel 8, stk. 1 ...................................................................................... 16
3.3.
Undtagelsesbestemmelsen i EMRK artikel 8, stk. 2 ......................................................................................... 17
3.3.1.
Legalitetsprincippet (Det udvidede legalitetsprincip) ............................................................................ 18
3.3.2.
De opregnede hensyn (legitime formål) ................................................................................................. 19
3.3.2.1. Forebygge forbrydelse ....................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.2.2. Forebygge uro .................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2.3. Landets økonomiske velfærd ............................................................................................................. 23
3.3.2.4. Den nationale sikkerhed .................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.3.
Nødvendighedsprincippet, herunder proportionalitetsafvejningen ...................................................... 29
3.3.3.1. Betydningen af baggrunden for medlemsstaternes indgreb ............................................................. 32
3.3.3.1.1. Alvorlig kriminalitet ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.3.1.2. Mindre alvorlig kriminalitet ......................................................................................................... 38
3.3.3.1.3. Opholdstilladelse opnået på baggrund af svig ............................................................................. 42
3.3.3.1.4. Ulovligt ophold............................................................................................................................. 43
3.3.3.1.5. Inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald, hvor ingen kriminalitet ................................ 47
3.3.3.1.6. Familiesammenføring til personer, som har lovligt ophold ......................................................... 52
3.3.3.2. Personlige forhold der skal inddrages i vurderingen ......................................................................... 55
3.3.3.3. Betydningen af indgrebets karakter og varighed ............................................................................... 59
3.3.3.4. Margin of appreciation (staternes skønsmargin ved proportionalitetsvurderingen) ........................ 60
4.
Privatliv i praksis (Kapitlet er under udarbejdelse) ............................................................................................64
Side
2
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
5.
6.
Familieliv (Kapitlet er under udarbejdelse) .......................................................................................................64
Andre relevante konventioner ..........................................................................................................................64
6.1.
Børnekonventionen ......................................................................................................................................... 64
6.1.1.
Relevante artikler i Børnekonventionen................................................................................................. 65
6.1.1.1. Børnekonventionens artikel 3
– ar ets tar
................................................................................. 65
6.1.1.2. Børnekonventionens artikel 9
– adskillelse fra forældre
................................................................ 68
6.1.1.3. Børnekonventionens artikel 12
– ar ets ret til at li e hørt
........................................................ 69
6.1.1.4. Samspillet mellem artikel 12 og andre af Børnekonventionens bestemmelser ................................ 72
6.1.2.
Udtalelser fra Børnekomitéen ................................................................................................................ 75
6.1.2.1. Børnekonventionens artikel 3 ............................................................................................................ 75
6.1.2.2. Børnekonventionens artikel 9 ............................................................................................................ 76
6.1.2.3. Børnekonventionens artikel 12 .......................................................................................................... 76
6.1.3.
Anvendelse af Børnekonventionen i praksis ved EMD ........................................................................... 78
6.1.3.1. Alvorlig kriminalitet ............................................................................................................................ 78
6.1.3.2. Mindre alvorlig kriminalitet ............................................................................................................... 81
6.1.3.3. Opholdstilladelse opnået på baggrund af svig ................................................................................... 82
6.1.3.4. Ulovligt ophold ................................................................................................................................... 87
6.1.3.5. Inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald, hvor ingen kriminalitet ....................................... 89
6.1.3.6. Familiesammenføring til personer, som har lovligt ophold ............................................................... 90
6.2.
Handicapkonventionen ................................................................................................................................... 90
6.2.1.
Relevante artikler i Handicapkonventionen ........................................................................................... 90
6.2.1.1. Handicapkonventionens artikel 1
– For ål
.................................................................................... 90
6.2.1.2. Handicapkonventionens artikel 5
– Lighed og ikke-diskri i atio
................................................ 91
6.2.2.
Udtalelser fra Handicapkomitéen........................................................................................................... 94
6.2.2.1. Handicapkonventionens artikel 5 ...................................................................................................... 94
6.2.3.
Anvendelse af Handicapkonventionen i praksis ved EMD ..................................................................... 95
6.3.
Konventionen om borgerlige og politiske rettigheder ..................................................................................... 95
6.3.1.
Relevante artikler i CCPR ........................................................................................................................ 96
6.3.1.1. CCPR artikel 17
– for ud od ilkårlig eller ulo lig i d la di g i pri at- og fa ilieli
.................. 96
6.3.2.
Udtalelser fra Menneskerettighedskomitéen ........................................................................................ 98
6.3.2.1. CCPR artikel 17 ................................................................................................................................... 98
6.3.3.
Anvendelse af CCPR i praksis ved EMD .................................................................................................. 98
7.
Litteraturliste ....................................................................................................................................................98
Side
3
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0005.png
1. Baggrund for udarbejdelse af notatet
Ved
lov nr. 174 af 27. februar 2019
om ændring af udlændingeloven, integrationsloven, repatrieringsloven
og forskellige andre love (Videre adgang til inddragelse af opholdstilladelser for flygtninge, loft over antallet
af familiesammenføringer, skærpet straf for overtrædelse af indrejseforbud og overtrædelse af opholds-,
underretnings- og meldepligt, ydelsesnedsættelse for forsørgere m.v.) blev udlændingelovens bestemmelser
om nægtelse af forlængelse og inddragelse af opholdstilladelse ændret. Det gælder herefter, at
opholdstilladelse til alle flygtninge alene meddeles med henblik på midlertidigt ophold, og at nægtelse af
forlængelse/inddragelse af en opholdstilladelse til flygtninge og familiesammenførte til flygtninge alene skal
undlades, hvis dette vil være i strid med Danmarks internationale forpligtelser.
Det fremgår af
lovforslag nr. L 140,
fremsat den 15. januar 2019, almindelige bemærkninger, afsnit 1, at:
Aftale på udlæ di geo ådet i deholde e
tilga g til udlæ di ge-
og integrationsområdet med fokus
på midlertidighed og hjemsendelse, der sender et klart signal om, at flygtninges ophold i Danmark er
midlertidigt, og at Danmark har både viljen og evne til at agere hurtigt og effektivt, når grundlaget for den
enkeltes opholdstilladelse ikke længere er til stede. Med aftalen styrkes muligheden for at inddrage
flygtninges og familiesammenførte til flygtninges opholdstilladelser og sende dem hjem, så snart det er
uligt, a ka t.
Om den styrkede mulighed for at inddrage flygtninges og familiesammenførte til flygtninges
opholdstilladelser anføres det videre, at:
De fo eslås e d idere
indsat en ny bestemmelse i udlændingeloven, hvorefter inddragelse af en
opholdstilladelse til flygtningen og familiesammenførte til flygtninge alene skal undlades, hvis dette vil være
i st id ed Da a ks i te atio ale fo pligtelse .[…]
Formålet med ændringerne er at tydeliggøre, at opholdstilladelser til alle flygtninge fremover alene skal
meddeles med henblik på midlertidigt ophold, og at gøre det klart, at udlændingemyndighederne fremover
skal inddrage eller nægte af forlænge en opholdstilladelse, medmindre det vil være i strid med Danmarks
i te atio ale fo pligtelse .
Det fremgår endvidere af
lovforslag nr. L 140,
almindelige bemærkninger, afsnit 2.3.2., at:
For at udlændingemyndighederne også fremover skal inddrage eller nægte at forlænge en opholdstilladelse,
medmindre det vil være i strid med Danmarks internationale forpligtelser, forudsættes det, at
udlændingemyndighederne løbende følger med i praksis fra navnlig EMD og tilpasser sin praksis i
overensstemmelse hermed.
Udlændingemyndighederne vil løbende følge udviklingen i retspraksis fra EMD og andre lignende
internationale organer og forudsættes i den forbindelse at udarbejde et notat, der løbende holdes opdateret
i overensstemmelse med ny praksis på området.
Udlændingemyndighederne forventes således at følge, udarbejde og løbende opdatere et dynamisk notat
over relevant praksis til brug for behandling af sager om inddragelse efter den foreslåede bestemmelse i
udlændingelovens § 19 a.
Side
4
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0006.png
Notatet fo udsættes offe tliggjo t på udlæ di ge
dighede es hje
eside.
Nærværende notat er udarbejdet i samarbejde mellem Udlændingenævnet, Flygtningenævnet og
Udlændingestyrelsen og vil løbende blive opdateret med praksis fra Den Europæiske
Me eskerettighedsdo stol i det følge de e æ t EMD og FN s ko itéer.
2. Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention
–
introduktion og grundprincipper
Hverken
FN s Flygt i geko e tio
eller
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention
(i det følgende
EMRK) forpligter positivt staterne til at give ikke-statsborgere ret til at etablere sig på statens territorium.
Begge konventioner begrænser imidlertid i væsentligt omfang staternes adgang til at nægte at forlænge, eller
inddrage en allerede meddelt opholdstilladelse.
2.1.
Konventionens ikrafttræden, statens forpligtelser og klageadgang
EMRK blev underskrevet i Rom den 4. november 1950 af 12 europæiske lande, heriblandt Danmark.
Konventionen trådte i kraft den 3. september 1953. I Danmark er konventionen gennemført i dansk
lovgivning ved lov nr. 285 af 29. april 1992 om Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention. Loven er
senere blevet ændret. Den gældende lovtekst findes i
lovbekendtgørelse nr. 750 af 19. oktober 1998.
De stater, der har underskrevet konventionen, har forpligtet sig til at respektere visse grundlæggende
menneskerettigheder over for enhver person, og konventionen giver mulighed for, at man som person eller
organisation kan klage over staten til EMD i Strasbourg, hvis man er af den opfattelse, at offentlige
myndigheder har krænket beskyttede rettigheder eller ikke har sikret beskyttede rettigheder.
Før den 28. november 1998, hvor den tidligere 11. tillægsprotokol trådte i kraft, blev klagerne først behandlet
af Menneskerettighedskommissionen, der tog stilling til, om klagen skulle tillades adgang for EMD
(admitteres). Hvis Kommissionen vurderede, at klagen skulle tillades adgang til EMD, blev der først
udarbejdet en rapport, hvorefter sagen kunne overgå til behandling i EMD. Den tidligere domstol og
kommission er nu afløst af én domstol, der behandler klagerne fra de modtages til de afsluttes.
EMRK indeholder to klagemuligheder. For det første kan en deltagerstat klage til EMD, hvis den finder, at en
anden deltagerstat overtræder konventionen (mellemstatslige klager). Den anden og mere benyttede
klageadgang består i, at enkeltpersoner eller ikke-statslige organisationer eller grupper af enkeltpersoner kan
klage direkte til EMD over en deltagerstat, hvis det menes, at staten har overtrådt grundlæggende
menneskerettigheder (den individuelle klageadgang).
2.2.
Klagebetingelser
–
den individuelle klageadgang
For at EMD kan behandle en klage indgivet af en privatperson eller en organisation, skal en række betingelser
af såvel processuel som materiel art være opfyldt. Nedenfor følger en kort beskrivelse af de mest
grundlæggende betingelser.
2.2.1. Klageren skal være offer for en krænkelse
EMD kan modtage klager fra personer, ikke-statslige organisationer eller grupper af enkeltpersoner. Det er
en betingelse for at klage, at man kan bevise eller sandsynliggøre, at man personligt er offer (victim) for en
Side
5
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
krænkelse af en eller flere af de rettigheder eller friheder, der opregnes i konventionen eller
tillægsprotokollerne. Som udgangspunkt er det derfor ikke muligt at klage over lovgivning eller
myndighedernes praksis, hvis man ikke direkte berøres heraf. Man berøres imidlertid direkte, hvis man for
eksempel dømmes i en straffesag eller udvises af udlændingemyndighederne i strid med konventionen. I så
fald opfylder man betingelsen om at være offer.
EMD har fastslået, at en person, der har fået nægtet forlænget eller inddraget sit opholdsgrundlag af en
medlemsstat, opfylder betingelsen om at være offer.
2.2.2. Staten skal være overtræder af konventionen
EMD kan kun behandle klager over staters overtrædelser af konventionen og tillægsprotokollerne. EMD
behandler derfor kun klager over handlinger eller undladelser, som staten er ansvarlig for. Staten er ansvarlig
for alle offentlige myndigheders handlinger, herunder domstole, politiet og udlændingemyndigheder. Dette
følger af EMRK artikel 34, hvoraf det fremgår, at der kan indbringes klager over de kontraherende parter i
EMRK. De kontraherende parter er, jf. artikel 1, de stater, som har tiltrådt konventionen.
EMD kan ikke behandle klager over privatpersoner, organisationer eller foreninger. I visse situationer kan
EMD dog behandle klagen, selvom det er en privatpersons handlinger, der er den direkte årsag til klagen.
Efter konventionen har staten nemlig en vis pligt til at gribe ind over for private virksomheder eller personers
behandling af andre mennesker.
2.2.3. Alle nationale retsmidler skal være udtømt
I henhold til artikel 35 i EMRK kan EMD kun behandle en sag, når alle nationale retsmidler er udtømt. Det
betyder, at klageren skal have udnyttet alle muligheder for at få sagen behandlet af de nationale
myndigheder. Herved sikres, at staten har haft mulighed for selv at rette op på eventuelle overtrædelser af
menneskerettighederne, inden EMD behandler sagen.
Ønsker man at klage over en beslutning om nægtelse af forlængelse eller inddragelse af en opholdstilladelse,
bortfald af en opholdstilladelse eller afslag på en ansøgning om opholdstilladelse, skal man således afvente
udfaldet af sagens endelige afgørelse i Flygtningenævnet eller
–
såfremt der er tale om en afgørelse fra
Udlændingestyrelsen, der er stadfæstet af Udlændingenævnet
–
udfaldet af sagen ved de nationale
domstole, inden man klager til EMD.
2.2.4. Klagen skal være indgivet senest 6 måneder efter, at alle nationale retsmidler er udtømt
I henhold til artikel 35, stk. 1, i EMRK kan EMD kun behandle en sag, såfremt denne er anlagt senest 6
måneder efter, at de nationale retsmidler er udtømt. Er tidsfristen overskredet, skal EMD som udgangspunkt
afvise at behandle klagen.
2.2.5. Klagen må ikke være åbenbart grundløs
EMD behandler ikke en klage, hvis klagen findes åbenbart grundløs, jf. EMRK artikel 35, stk. 3, litra a. En klage
er åbenbart grundløs, hvis der ikke er oplysninger i klagen, som tyder på, at EMRK er blevet overtrådt. Langt
de fleste klager afvises som åbenbart grundløse.
Side
6
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0008.png
2.2.6. Klagen må ikke være anonym
EMD behandler ikke anonyme klager. Dette følger af EMRK artikel 35, stk. 2, litra a.
2.2.7. Klagen må ikke have været behandlet ved internationale klageorganer tidligere
Det følger af EMRK artikel 35, stk. 2, litra b, at EMD ikke behandler en sag, hvis sagens indhold i det
væsentligste er identisk med en anden sag, som tidligere har været behandlet af EMD eller andre
internationale organer eller komitéer, såfremt den nye sag ikke indeholder nye relevante oplysninger.
2.3.
Virkningen af indgivelsen af en klage/afsigelsen af en dom
EMD er ikke en appelinstans for nationale afgørelser og kan ikke tilsidesætte eller ændre afgørelser, som er
truffet af de nationale myndigheder. En klage til EMD har derfor heller ikke opsættende virkning.
Klageren kan dog anmode EMD om at rette henvendelse til staten og anbefale, at de nationale myndigheder
for eksempel undlader at effektuere en afgørelse, indtil EMD har afsagt en dom i klagesagen. I praksis følger
staterne som hovedregel sådanne henstillinger. Dette var dog ikke tilfældet i sagen
Mamatkulov og Askarov
mod Tyrkiet (2005),
hvor Tyrkiet udleverede klagerne til Usbekistan, selvom EMD i medfør af
procesreglementets regel 39
om foreløbige foranstaltninger (interim measures) havde anmodet de tyrkiske
myndigheder om at udsætte udleveringen indtil videre. EMD udtalte (præmisserne 128-129):
. The Cou t eite ates that
i tue of A ti le
of the Co e tio Co t a ti g States u de take to
ef ai f o a a t o o issio that a hi de the effe ti e e e ise of a i di idual appli a t s ight of
application. A failure by a Contracting State to comply with interim measures is to be regarded as preventing
the Cou t f o effe ti el e a i i g the appli a t s o plai t a d as hi de i g the effe ti e e e ise of his
or her right and, accordingly, as a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.
129. Having regard to the material before it, the Court concludes that, by failing to comply with the interim
measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Turkey is in breach of its obligations under Article 34
of the Co e tio .
Hvis EMD dømmer staten for at have overtrådt konventionen, har staten pligt til at rette op på krænkelsen.
Det er op til staten at bestemme, hvordan den kan leve op til konventionens krav efter at være blevet dømt
af EMD. En beslutning om at udsende en person fra landet kan for eksempel ændres af de nationale
myndigheder, så personen i stedet får en opholdstilladelse.
Når EMD har dømt staten for en overtrædelse af konventionen, overvåger Europarådets Ministerkomité, om
staten følger dommen. Staten er endvidere forpligtet til at underrette Ministerkomitéen om, hvilke tiltag den
har iværksat for at efterleve dommen indenfor en fastsat frist.
2.4.
EMDs a ve delse af forelø ige fora stalt i ger, jf. EMD’s pro esregle e t regel 39
i EMD s pro esregle e t,
at det kammer, der behandler en klage, efter anmodning
Det følger af
regel
kan komme med tilkendegivelser om foreløbige foranstaltninger, hvis EMD vurderer, at sådanne bør træffes
af hensyn til parterne eller en hensigtsmæssig behandling af klagesagen. Procesreglementet angiver ikke
Side
7
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0009.png
nærmere, hvornår hensynet til parternes interesse eller behandlingen af klagesagen taler for, at EMD
kommer med tilkendegivelser om foreløbige foranstaltninger.
I praksis opstår spørgsmålet om foreløbige foranstaltninger navnlig i sager om udvisning, udsendelse eller
udlevering af udlændinge, og anmodninger om anvendelsen af regel 39 vedrører som oftest sager om retten
til liv, retten til ikke at blive udsat for tortur eller umenneskelig behandling og ses kun undtagelsesvis benyttet
i sager om retten til respekt for privat- og familieliv (EMRK artiklerne 2, 3 samt 8).
EMD har i sager, hvor det er blevet gjort gældende, at der er en risiko for uoprettelig skade, hvad angår
klagerens adgang til at nyde beskyttelse efter en af konventionens kernebestemmelser, udtalt, at formålet
med foreløbige foranstaltninger er at opretholde status quo, indtil EMD har taget stilling til foranstaltningens
berettigelse. Foreløbige foranstaltninger skal således sikre den fortsatte tilstedeværelse af den genstand, der
er emne for anmodningen, således at der ikke sker uoprettelig skade. Foreløbige foranstaltninger sikrer
således en reel og effektiv klageadgang efter artikel 34 ved at sikre sagens genstand. EMD har videre udtalt,
at foreløbige foranstaltninger tjener det formål at undgå situationer, som ville forhindre EMD i at undersøge
sagen korrekt, og at sikre klageren den praktiske og effektive udnyttelse af de påberåbte
konventionsrettigheder. Tilkendegivelser om foreløbige foranstaltninger tjener således ikke kun til, at der
kan gennemføres en effektiv undersøgelse af klagen, men også til at sikre, at konventionens beskyttelse af
klageren er effektiv. (se
Mamatkulov og Askarov mod Tyrkiet (2005),
præmisserne 108 og 125, og
Aoulmi
mod Frankrig (2006),
præmisserne 103 og 107-108).
EMD s a e delse af regel
har
således karakter af et foreløbigt processuelt retsmiddel. Der er med
anvendelse af bestemmelsen ikke taget stilling til, om der i den konkrete sag foreligger en krænkelse af
ko e tio e . Fra EMD s praksis edrøre de EMRK artikel er der således flere eksempler
på anvendelse af
regel 39 i sager vedrørende udenlandske statsborgere, hvor EMD efterfølgende har udtalt, at en fjernelse af
opholdsgrundlaget ikke ville udgøre en krænkelse af konventionen. Som eksempler på anvendelse af
midlertidige foranstaltninger kan nævnes:
Amrollahi v. Denmark (2002),
præmis 5, hvor EMD anvendte regel 39 i en situation, hvor EMD vurderede, at
det var i parternes interesse, at pågældendes udvisning ikke blev effektueret, ligesom det skønnedes
nødvendigt for at sikre en fortsat effektiv behandling af sagen ved EMD.
Klageren var af byretten blevet idømt fængselsstraf for narkokriminalitet og var blevet udvist for bestandig
fra Danmark. Klageren havde fire år forinden indledt et forhold med en dansk statsborger, som han blev gift
ed året efter ud is i gsdo
e , og parret fik to ør sa
e , so på tidspu ktet for EMD s eha dli g
af sagen var henholdsvis et og seks år gamle.
EMD anvendte i dette tilfælde regel 39 efter de nationale myndigheders afgørelse for at sikre, at klagerens
udvisning ikke ville resultere i en adskillelse af klageren fra hans ægtefælle og børn, inden EMD havde
vurderet, om der var tale om en krænkelse af artikel 8 (retten til familieliv).
. The Cou t de ided to appl Rule of the Rules of Cou t, i di ati g to the Go e
e t that it as desi a le
in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to expel the applicant pending
the Cou t's de isio .
Side
8
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0010.png
2.5.
Det releva te tidspu kt for EMD’s vurderi g
Da der forlø er oge tid fra afsigelse af de e delige atio ale afgørelse og i dtil EMD s eha dli g af
sagen, vil der i den mellemliggende periode kunne være indtrådt ændringer i klagerens personlige forhold. I
en række domme vedrørende udvisning af kriminelle udlændinge har EMD forholdt sig til spørgsmålet om,
hvorvidt vurderingen af, om klageren havde et privat- og familieliv i artikel
s forsta d, skulle ske på
baggrund af klagerens situation på tidspunktet for den endelige nationale afgørelse om udvisning og
effektueringen heraf, eller om der skulle tages hensyn til omstændigheder indtruffet i klagerens liv efter dette
tidspunkt.
I sagen
Bouchelkia v. France (1997)
udtalte EMD sig i præmisserne 38, 39 samt 41, om det relevante tidspunkt
for vurderingen af klagerens privat- og familieliv i tilfælde af, at klagerens udvisning var blevet effektueret.
. As efo e the Co
issio , it as ot o tested the Go e
e t that the e had ee a i te fe e e
in the applicant's private and family life considered as a whole. Nevertheless, they argued before the Court
that at the time the deportation order was executed, Mr Bouchelkia, a young single adult with no children,
did not have a family life within the meaning of the Convention and only developed one after his illegal return
to France. His companion, who had become his wife in March 1996, must have been aware that he was in
France unlawfully; the applicant was not entitled now to rely on a situation created in disregard of the law.
At the material time, the interference in the applicant's private life was therefore minor, regard being had to
the circumstances justifying it.
39. Mr Bouchelkia argued that when considering his family life account had to be taken of his close relatives
as well as of the family he had established with his wife. He had arrived in France at the age of 2 and, until
his imprisonment, had lived with his mother, stepfather, four brothers and sisters and five stepbrothers and
stepsisters born of his mother's remarriage. His relationship with his mother had remained particularly close
even during his imprisonment and forced stay in Algeria. With the exception of his elder brother, all his
brothers and sisters had French nationality. He had returned to France illegally with the sole objective of being
reunited with the woman who had been his companion since 1986, with whom he had had a child in 1993
and whom he had married in 1996. His family life had been established unlawfully - but openly and with the
knowledge of the authorities. In the applicant's submission, respect for private and family life had to extend
also to his wife and daughter, both of whom had French nationality and could not follow him to Algeria
because of the current situation in that country.
[…]
41. The Court notes that the deportation order was made on 11 June 1990 and executed on 9 July 1990. It is
with regard to the position at that time that the question whether the applicant had a private and family life
within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8) falls to be considered. Mr Bouchelkia was at that
point single and had no children. He only started his own family after the deportation order was made, thereby
consolidating his family ties in France. At the time, he was still living with his original family and, since the
age of 2, had lived in France where he had his main private and family ties. Like the Commission, the Court
considers that the applicant's deportation in 1990 amounted to an interference with his right to respect for
his p i ate a d fa il life.
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at der ikke var sket en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8, og udtalte i præmis 52, at:
Side
9
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0011.png
The autho ities ould legiti atel o side that the appli a t's depo tatio as, at that
time, necessary for
the prevention of disorder or crime. The fact that, after the deportation order was made and while he was an
illegal immigrant, he built up a new family life does not justify finding, a posteriori, that the deportation order
made and e
e uted i
as ot e essa .
I sagen
Kaya v. Germany (2007)
blev de nationale myndigheders afgørelse om udvisning af klageren på
baggrund af kriminalitet endelig i marts 2001, hvorefter klageren blev udsendt i april 2001. Klageren giftede
sig i 2002 i sit hjemland med en kvinde, som havde opholdstilladelse i det samme land, som klageren var
blevet udvist fra. I 2003 fik parret et barn sammen, mens klageren stadig boede i sit hjemland.
EMD behandlede sagen i 2007, og udtalte i præmis 57, at:
The uestio
hethe the appli a t also e jo ed fa il life ithi the ea i g of A ticle
8 has to be
determined with regard to the position at the time the exclusion order became final. The question as to when
the expulsion order became final has to be determined by applying the domestic law. According to the
domestic law, the complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court is devised as an extraordinary remedy which
does not prevent the contested decision from becoming final. It follows that the expulsion order became final
on 7 March 2001 when the Baden-Württemberg Administrative Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant
leave to appeal. The Court's task is thus to state whether or not the domestic authorities had complied with
their obligation to respect the applicant's private and family life at that particular moment, leaving aside
circumstances which only came into being after the authorities took their decision. At that time, the applicant
had ot et fou ded a fa il of his o , as he a ied i Ma
a d his hild as o su se ue tl .
Om klagerens stiftelse af familieliv, efter hans udvisning var blevet endelig i marts 2001, udtalte EMD i præmis
67, at:
As the Cou t has to dete i e the p opo tio alit of the do esti de isio s i the light of the positio he
the expulsion order became final in March 2001 (see, mutatis mutandis, El Boujaïdi, cited above, § 33, and
the further references in paragraph 57, above), the applicant cannot plead his relationship with his German
ife, ho he a ied o l afte depo tatio to Tu ke , a d to thei su se ue tl o hild.
EMD udtalte endvidere i præmis 70, at:
The Cou t app e iates that the e pulsio o de i posed o the appli a t had a se ious i pa t o his p i ate
life and on the relationship with his parents. However, having regard to all circumstances of the case, and in
particular to the seriousness of the applicant's offences, which cannot be trivialised as mere examples of
juvenile delinquency, the Court does not consider that the respondent State assigned too much weight to its
own interest when it decided to impose that measu
e.
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at der ikke var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8.
Tilsvarende udtalte EMD i sagen
Maslov v. Austria (2008)
i præmis 61:
It eite ates that the uestio hethe the appli a t had a fa il life ithi the
e dete i ed i the light of the positio he the e lusio o de e a e fi al.
ea i g of A ti le
ust
Side
10
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0012.png
I
Maslov-sagen
blev de nationale myndigheders afgørelse om udvisning på baggrund af kriminalitet endelig i
november 2002. Klageren blev derefter udsendt i december 2003. EMD behandlede sagen i 2008.
EMD udtalte i præmis 62, at:
The appli a t as a i o he the e lusio o de as i posed. He had ea hed the age of ajo it ,
namely 18 years, when the exclusion order became final in November 2002 following the Constitutional
Cou t s de isio , ut he as still li i g ith his pa e ts. I a
ase, the Cou t has a epted i a u e of
cases concerning young adults who had not yet founded a family of their own that their relationship with
their parents and other close fa
il
e e s also o stituted
family life (see
Bouchelkia v. France, 29
January 1997,
§ 41, Reports 1997-I;
El Boujaïdi,
cited above, § 33; and Ezzouhdi,
ited a o e, §
.
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8, og udtalte i præmis 100, at:
Ha i g ega d to the fo egoi g o side atio s, i pa ti ula the –
with one exception
–
non-violent nature of
the offe es o
itted he a i o a d the State s dut to fa ilitate his ei teg atio i to so iet , the
length
of the appli a t s la ful eside e i Aust ia, his fa il , so ial a d li guisti ties ith Aust ia a d the
lack of proven ties with his country of origin, the Court finds that the imposition of an exclusion order, even of
a limited duration, was disproportionate
to the legiti ate ai pu sued,
the
p e e tio of diso de o i e
.
It as the efo e ot
necessary in a democratic society
.
EMD har i en senere sag fraveget den ovennævnte praksis, hvor vurderingen af klagerens personlige forhold
skal foretages ud fra, hvorledes de var på tidspunktet, hvor den nationale afgørelse blev endelig. I denne sag
var klagerens udvisning endelig på tidspunktet for EMD´s behandling af sagen, men endnu ikke effektuereret:
I sagen
A.A. v. the United Kingdom (2011)
var klagerens udvisning ikke blevet effektueret, modsat sagerne
Kaya v. Germany (2007)
og
Maslov v. Austria (2008).
EMD udtalte i præmis 67:
[…] The Cou t e alls that a o di g to its esta lished ase-law
under Article 3 of the Convention, the
existence of a risk faced by an applicant in the country to which he is to be expelled is assessed by reference
to the facts which were known or ought to have been known at the time of the expulsion; in cases where the
applicant has not yet been deported, the risk is assessed at the time of the proceedings before the Court. The
Court sees no reason to take a different approach to the assessment of the proportionality of a deportation
under Article 8 of the Convention and points out in this regard that its task is to assess the compatibility with
the Convention of the
appli a t s a tual e pulsio a d ot of the fi al e pulsio o de . […].
Any other approach would render the protection of the Convention theoretical and illusory by allowing
Contracting States to expel applicants months, even years, after a final order had been made notwithstanding
the fa t that su h e pulsio ould e disp opo tio ate ha i g ega d to su se ue t de elop e ts. […]
2.6.
Konventionens eksterritoriale virkning
I henhold til konventionens artikel 1 er deltagerstaterne forpligtet til at sikre enhver person under deres
jurisdiktion de rettigheder og friheder, som er indeholdt i konventionen.
Side
11
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0013.png
Staternes forpligtelse består således uanset personens nationalitet, så længe denne person er under
medlemsstatens jurisdiktion.
En medlemsstat ifalder som udgangspunkt ikke ansvar for krænkelser af konventionen, såfremt disse
krænkelser er begået af enten andre medlemsstater eller tredjelande.
EMD har dog i sin praksis fastlagt, at
En medlemsstat kan blive holdt indirekte ansvarlig for krænkelser begået af andre medlemslande
eller tredjelande på medlemsstatens område, hvis disse krænkelser er foregået med den pågældende
medlemsstats viden og accept, og ligeledes hvis der er ydet bistand til disse handlinger.
En medlemsstat kan blive holdt indirekte ansvarlig for krænkelser af konventionens bestemmelser,
såfremt medlemsstaten udsætter en person for en reel risiko for at dennes rettigheder bliver
krænket i et land udenfor statens jurisdiktion. Dette er navnlig relevant i forhold til konventionens
artikel 2, 3, 5 og 6.
De
Eu opæiske
Der kan for en nærmere gennemgang henvises til Jon Fridrik Kjølbro i
Me eske ettighedsko e tio fo p aktike e
, side 47ff.
2.7.
EMD’s fortolk i gspri ipper
EMD har ved flere lejligheder gjort klart, at EMRK som international traktat adskiller sig fra andre
internationale traktater, idet andre internationale traktater har karakter af kontrakter mellem staterne og
ikke på samme måde som EMRK er indgået for at beskytte individuelle rettigheder. I sagen
Soering mod UK
(1989)
udtalte EMD i præmis 87 følgende:
I i te p eti g the Co e tio , ega ds ust e had to its spe ial ha a te as a t eat fo the olle ti e
enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms […]. Thus, the object and purpose of the Convention
as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that its provisions be interpreted and
applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective […].
Netop pri ippet o EMRK s effekti itet og praktiske rug arhed har ofte fået EMD til
at anlægge en
progressiv og aktiv fortolkning. Fokus har i mindre grad været på formalia og processuelle regler og i højere
grad på, hvilke friheder og forhold den konkrete bestemmelse i konventionen har til hensigt at beskytte.
De standarder for menneskerettighedsbeskyttelsen, der er indeholdt i konventionen, er ikke statiske, men
afspejler ændringerne i deltagerstaternes samfund. Domstolen benytter således en dynamisk
fortolkningsstil, og den lader sig inspirere af samtiden og ikke datidens samfundsopfattelse. I sagen
Tyrer
mod UK (1978),
hvor Domstolen skulle vurdere, hvorvidt fysisk afstraffelse af ungdomskriminelle udgjorde
nedværdigende behandling i henhold til artikel 3, udtalte Domstolen bl.a., følgende:
the Co e tio is a li i g i st u e t hi h […]
must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. In
the case now before it the Court cannot but be influenced by the development and commonly accepted
sta da ds i the pe al poli of the e e States of the Cou il of Eu ope i this field.
I adskillige af konventionens bestemmelser forbeholdes deltagerstaterne en ret til at gøre indgreb i den
beskyttede rettighed eller frihed, hvis et sådant indgreb er nødvendigt bl.a. for at beskytte andres rettigheder
Side
12
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0014.png
eller den offentlige orden, herunder den nationale sikkerhed. Når EMD behandler en sag omhandlende en af
disse bestemmelser, skal EMD søge at belyse, hvorvidt der i de nationale myndigheders afgørelse er fundet
en passende balance mellem samfundets legitime behov for at regulere individers adfærd og pågældende
individs ret til at nyde den pågældende rettighed eller frihed. Denne afvejning kaldes en
proportionalitetsafvejning.
Finder EMD, at de nationale myndigheder ikke har foretaget en sådan korrekt proportionalitetsafvejning, vil
der foreligge en krænkelse af den relevante artikel i EMRK.
Der henvises i øvrigt til afsnit 3.3.3.
Har medlemsstaterne på den anden side foretaget en indgående prøvelse af sagen og i afvejningen inddraget
og vurderet alle relevante hensyn, er EMD i overensstemmelse med subsidiaritetsprincippet tilbageholdende
med at foretage sin egen prøvelse. EMD indrømmer medlemsstaterne en såkaldt skønsmargin (margin of
appreciation) i den praktiske anvendelse af konventionens bestemmelser og i proportionalitetsafvejningen,
når den pågældende medlemsstat i afvejningen har inddraget og vurderet alle relevante hensyn. Det
indebærer, at EMD ikke foretager en tilbundsgående prøvelse af den af medlemsstaten foretagne afvejning
i den enkelte sag.
Omfanget af skønsmarginen i den enkelte sag afgøres på baggrund af en vurdering af karakteren af indgrebet
og den rettighed, der foretages indgreb i. Således vil medlemsstaterne typisk indrømmes en videre
skønsmargin i sager, hvor indgrebet er begrundet i moralske vurderinger og politiske prioriteringer i det
pågældende land og en snævrere skønsmargin i sager, hvor indgrebet påvirker grundlæggende aspekter af
individets liv.
I sagen
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (1985),
udtalte EMD i præmis 67:
The Cou t e alls that, although the esse tial o je t of A ti le a t. is to p ote t the
individual against
arbitrary interference by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an
effective respect for family life (see the above-mentioned Marckx judgment, Series A no. 31, p. 15, para. 31).
However, especially as far as those positive obligations are concerned, the notion of "respect" is not clear-cut:
having regard to the diversity of the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States,
the notion's requirements will vary considerably from case to case. Accordingly, this is an area in which the
Contracting Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure
compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of
individuals (see, amongst other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the above-
e tio ed
Belgian Linguistic
judgment, Series A no. 6, p. 32, para. 5; the National Union of Belgian Police judgment of 27 October 1975,
Series A no. 19, p. 18, para. 39; the above-mentioned Marckx judgment, Series A no. 31, p. 15, para. 31; and
the Rasmussen judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, para. 40). In particular, in the area now
under consideration, the extent of a State's obligation to admit to its territory relatives of settled immigrants
will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved. Moreover, the Court cannot ignore
that the present case is concerned not only with family life but also with immigration and that, as a matter of
well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the
entry of non-
atio als i to its te ito .
Side
13
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0015.png
Enkelte af konventionens rettigheder, herunder artikel 3, er imidlertid af så fundamental karakter, at de ikke
undergives en proportionalitetstest, og staterne ikke indrømmes nogen skønsmargin.
Der henvises i øvrigt til afsnit 3.3.3.4.
3. EMRK artikel 8
–
retten til individets privatliv og familieliv
Ordlyde i EMRK s artikel er so
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security,
public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Den danske ordlyd er som følger:
Artikel 8
Ret til respekt for privatliv og familieliv
1. Enhver har ret til respekt for sit privatliv og familieliv, sit hjem og sin korrespondance.
2. Ingen offentlig myndighed må gøre indgreb i udøvelsen af denne ret, medmindre det sker i
overensstemmelse med loven og er nødvendigt i et demokratisk samfund af hensyn til den nationale
sikkerhed, den offentlige tryghed eller landets økonomiske velfærd, for at forebygge uro eller
forbrydelse, for at beskytte sundheden eller sædeligheden eller for at beskytte andres rettigheder
og friheder.
Udgangspunktet er således, at staten ikke må foretage indgreb i individets ret til at udøve sit privat- eller
familieliv, jf. artikel 8, stk. 1.
Artikel 8 er imidlertid ikke en absolut rettighed, og i stk. 2 oplistes de betingelser, der skal være opfyldt, for
at staten kan foretage et indgreb i retten:
Indgrebet skal være hjemlet i den nationale lovgivning,
Indgrebet skal varetage et eller flere af de i stk. 2 nævnte formål, og
Indgrebet skal være nødvendigt i et demokratisk samfund for at opnå det eller de pågældende
formål.
følger:
Undtagelsesbestemmelserne behandles nærmere under punkt 2.3.
Der henvises endvidere til følgende litteratur:
Jon Fridrik Kjøl
ro: De Europæiske Me
2017
eskerettighedsko e tio – for praktikere , . udga e,
Side
14
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0016.png
Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
–
Right to respect for private and
family life, home and correspondence,
udgivet af Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol på
Europarådets hje
eside
. oe.i t so del af serie Guides o the Co e tio ,
senest
opdateret de
. august
i det følge de Guide
Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human
Rights
af Ivana Roagna, udgivet af Europarådet på Europarådets hjemmeside www.coe.int under
Cou il of Europe hu a rights ha d ooks i
i det følge de Ha d ook
Anvendelsesområdet
3.1.
For at EMRK artikel 8 kan finde anvendelse, opstilles følgende krav:
Forholdet skal falde under anvendelsesområdet for artikel 8
Der skal være en forbindelse mellem statens handling (eller undladelse af handling) og den rettighed,
som klageren anser for krænket.
ude for artikel
s
Er et af de to ovenstående forhold ikke opfyldt, falder
ha dli ge eller u dladelse
anvendelsesområde, og der foreligger ikke en krænkelse af bestemmelsen.
Anvendelsesområdet for artikel 8 er defineret bredt. Grundlæggende beskytter artikel 8, stk. 1, retten til
privatliv, familieliv, hjem og korrespondance.
I
Guide
nævnes afgørelserne
Botta v. Italy (1998)
og
Gillberg v. Sweden (2012)
som eksempler på forhold,
der ikke falder u der artikel s a e delseso råde.
I sagen
Botta v. Italy (1998)
blev Italien indklaget for EMD, idet klageren hævdede, at Italien var ansvarlig for,
at en række ejere af private badehoteller ikke havde efterlevet et lovkrav om, at der skulle installeres
handikapvenlige bade- og toiletfaciliteter, ligesom der skulle anlægges ramper, således at handikappede
kunne få adgang til badestrandene. Klageren, som selv var handikappet, anførte for EMD, at manglende
handikapfaciliteter krænkede hans ret til respekt for hans privatliv.
EMD udtalte i præmis 35:
[…] the Cou t held, that the ight asse ted o e ed i te pe so al elatio s of su h oad a d i dete i ate
scope that there could be no conceivable direct link between the measures the State was being urged to take
i o de to ake good the o issio s of the p i ate athi g esta lish e ts a d the appli a t s p i ate life.
I
Gillberg v. Sweden (2012)
var klageren forsker på et statsligt universitet. Han blev fundet skyldig i at have
destruereret dokumenter, som han var blevet pålagt at udlevere til tredjepart, og som indeholdt oplysninger
om et projekt, han arbejdede på. Han anførte, at dommen havde krænket hans privatliv, idet hans ære og
omdømme var blevet skadet. Han anførte endvidere, at dommen havde skadet hans moralske og psykiske
integritet, og at han havde haft et økonomisk tab, da han var blevet fyret på grund af dommen.
EMD udtalte i præmis 73:
Side
15
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0017.png
Fu the o e, e e if the appli a t s allegatio that he as dis issed the No egia I stitute of
Public
Health is an established fact, the Court notes that the applicant failed to show that there was any causal link
et ee the o i tio a d the dis issal.
Modsat de to første sager sås det i sagen
Jankauskas v. Lithuania (no. 2) (2017)
i præmis 69-70, at forholdet
faldt under anvendelsesområdet af artikel 8. Der var i denne sag tale om en person, som på grund af en
tidligere dom for kriminalitet ikke kunne opnå autorisation som advokat. EMD udtalte i denne forbindelse:
. […] the de isio to dis iss the appli a t f o the list of t ai ee ad o ates had
an impact on his
professional activities a
d thus o his p i ate life […]
. […] the Cou t ill p o eed o the assu ptio that the appli a t s dis issal as a t ai ee ad o ate
o stituted a i te fe e e ith his ight to espe t fo his p i ate life.
3.2.
Udgangspunktet
–
indholdet i EMRK artikel 8, stk. 1
Forbuddet mod indgreb i artikel 8, stk. 1, aktiveres først, når det er påvist, at forholdet er omfattet af en eller
flere af følgende anvendelsesområder:
Respekt for klagers privatliv
Respekt for klagers familieliv
Respekt for klagers hjem
Respekt for klagers korrespondance
Sager vedrørende udlændinges ophold i Danmark vil kunne rejse spørgsmål om indgreb i retten til respekt
for privat- og/eller familieliv. Spørgsmål om indgreb i retten til respekt for hjem og korrespondance vil ikke
blive behandlet i nærværende notat.
For så vidt angår medlemsstaternes forpligtelser i medfør af EMRK artikel 8 til at tillade en udlænding ophold
i medlemsstaten på baggrund af den pågældendes privat- og/eller familieliv, har EMD bl.a. i præmis 100 i
sagen
Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (2014)
udtalt:
The p ese t ase o
erns essentially a refusal to allow the applicant to reside in the Netherlands on the
basis of her family life in the Netherlands. It has not been disputed that there is family life within the meaning
of Article 8 of the Convention between the applicant and her husband and their three children. As to the
question of compliance with this provision, the Court reiterates that a State is entitled, as a matter of well-
established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its
territory and their residence there. The Convention does not guarantee the right of a foreign national to enter
o to eside i a pa ti ula ou t […]
I samme sag udtalte EMD i præmis 107:
Whe e i
ig atio is o e ed, A ti le a ot
be considered to impose on a State a general obligation
to espe t a a ied ouple s hoi e of ou t fo thei
at i o ial eside e o to autho ise fa il
reunification on its territory. Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the
e te t of a State s o ligatio s to ad it to its te ito elati es of pe so s esidi g the e ill a a o di g
to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest. Factors to be taken into
Side
16
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0018.png
account in this context are the extent to which family life would effectively be ruptured, the extent of the ties
in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the
country of origin of the alien concerned and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a
histo of ea hes of i
ig atio la o o side atio s of pu li o de eighi g i fa ou of e lusio .
Uafhængigt af, om der i en sag findes at foreligge et familieliv som omfattet af artikel 8, stk. 1, kan en
udlændings forhold i opholdsstaten udgøre et privatliv omfattet af bestemmelsen. I sagen
A.A. v. the United
Kingdom (2011)
i præmis 49 udtalte EMD:
A e a i atio of the Cou t s ase-law
would tend to suggest that the applicant, a young adult of 24 years
old, who resides with his mother and has not yet founded a family of his own, can be regarded as having
family life . However, it is not necessary to decide the question given that, as Article 8 also protects the right
to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes
embrace aspects
of a i di idual s so ial ide tit , it ust e a epted that the totalit of so ial ties et ee
settled migrants and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of private life
within the meaning of Article 8. Thus, regardless of the existence or otherwise of a family life , the expulsion
of a settled migrant constitutes an interference with his right to respect for private life. While the Court has
previously referred to the need to decide in the circumstances of the particular case before it whether it is
appropriate to focus on family life rather than private life , it observes that in practice the factors to be
examined in order to assess the proportionality of the deportation measure are the same regardless of
whether fa
il o p i ate life is e gaged.
3.3.
Undtagelsesbestemmelsen i EMRK artikel 8, stk. 2
EMRK artikel 8, stk. 1, kan alene fraviges, hvis betingelserne i artikel 8, stk. 2, er opfyldt:
Indgrebet skal have hjemmel i lov (legalitetsprincippet)
Indgrebet skal varetage et eller flere af de i bestemmelsen nævnte formål og
Indgrebet skal være nødvendigt i et demokratisk samfund for at opnå det eller de pågældende
formål
Da undtagelsesbestemmelsen giver medlemsstaten ret til at foretage et indgreb i en konventionsrettighed,
skal bestemmelsen fortolkes indskrænkende, ligesom oplistningen af de hensyn, som kan begrunde et sådant
indgreb, er udtømmende og skal fortolkes indskrænkende.
Af
Handbook
, side 36, fremgår:
Si e the de ogato
lause e a les est i tio s to
the rights guaranteed by the Convention, its field of
application must be strictly marked off. The Court, therefore, adopts a narrow approach: the exceptions form
a losed list, hose i te p etatio
ust e igo ous.
Der he ises sa
e sted til EMD s praksis i sage
Sidiropoulos and others v. Greece (1998).
I præmis 37 anførte den indklagede stat:
Side
17
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0019.png
The Go e
e t su itted that the i te fe e e i uestio pu sued se e al ai s: the ai te a e of
atio al se u it , the p e e tio of diso de a d the upholdi g of G ee e s ultural
traditions and historical
a d ultu al s
ols.
EMD udtalte i præmis 38, at:
The Cou t is ot pe suaded that the last of those ai s a o stitute o e of the legiti ate ai s set out i
Article 11 § 2. Exceptions to freedom of association must be narrowly interpreted, such that the enumeration
of the is st i tl e hausti e a d the defi itio of the
e essa il est i ti e.
Der kan for en nærmere gennemgang henvises til Jon Fridrik Kjølbro i
Menneskerettighedskonvention for praktikere
, side 755-772.
De
Eu opæiske
Betingelserne, som skal være opfyldt, for at et indgreb ikke er en krænkelse af den beskyttede rettighed,
gennemgås i det følgende.
3.3.1. Legalitetsprincippet (Det udvidede legalitetsprincip)
Det fremgår af bestemmelsen i EMRK artikel 8, stk. 2, at der foreligger en krænkelse, hvis indgrebet ikke har
hjemmel i national lovgivning. EMD har dog fortolket hjemmelsbegrebet udvidende, således at det
indeholder tre delelementer, som alle skal være opfyldt:
Der skal være hjemmel i den nationale lovgivning
Hjemlen skal være offentligt tilgængelig
Hjemlen skal være skrevet på en måde, så det er muligt for individet at forudse sin retsstilling
Finder EMD, at et af kravene ikke er opfyldt, vil det medføre, at legalitetsprincippet ikke er opfyldt, og at der
vil foreligge en krænkelse af bestemmelsen.
I sagen
Amann v. Switzerland (2000)
fandt EMD, at det konkrete indgreb ikke opfyldte kravet om at være
legitimeret i national lovgivning.
I præmis 55 udtalte EMD:
The Cou t eite ates that the ph ase
in accordance with the law implies conditions which go beyond the
existence of a legal basis in domestic law and requires that the legal basis be accessible and foreseeable
.
Om kravet om mulighed for at kunne forudsige sin retsstilling udtalte EMD i præmis 56:
A o di g to the Cou t s esta lished ase-law,
a rule is foreseeable if it is formulated with sufficient
precision to enable any individual
–
if need be with appropriate advice
– to egulate his o du t.
EMD fremhævede i præmis 58, hvorfor legalitetsprincippet ikke var opfyldt i den konkrete sag:
The Cou t poi ts out fi st of all that A ti le of the Fede al Cou il s De ee of
Ap il
o the Poli e
Se i e of the Fede al Pu li P ose uto s Offi e, a o di g to hi h the fede al poli e
shall provide an
investigatio
a d i fo atio se i e i the i te ests of the Co fede atio s i te al a d e te al se u it
,
including by means of surveillance measures, contains no indication as to the persons concerned by such
Side
18
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0020.png
measures, the circumstances in which they may be ordered, the means to be employed or the procedures to
be observed. That rule cannot therefore be considered to be sufficiently clear and detailed to afford
app op iate p ote tio agai st i te fe e e
the autho ities ith the appli a t s ight to
respect for his
p i ate life a d o espo de e.
3.3.2. De opregnede hensyn (legitime formål)
Det fremgår samtidig af bestemmelsen i artikel 8, stk. 2, at indgrebet skal være foretaget under hensyn til et
legitimt formål, som kan henføres til:
Den nationale sikkerhed
Den offentlige tryghed
Landets økonomiske velfærd
Forebygge uro eller forbrydelse
Beskytte sundheden eller sædeligheden
Beskytte andres rettigheder og friheder
Det fremgår af Jon Fridrik Kjølbros bog
De Eu opæiske Me eske ettighedsko e tio fo p aktike e
(2017),
side 765, at ovenstående formål er en udtømmende opremsning. Nationalstaten kan således ikke
påberåbe sig et hensyn, som ikke er oplistet i artikel 8, stk. 2. Et indgreb i en beskyttet rettighed, som ikke er
begrundet i et af de ovenstående legitime formål, vil udgøre en krænkelse af EMRK.
Det fremgår videre af side 766, at hensynene skal fortolkes indskrænkende. Dog er disse hensyn så bredt
formuleret, at de i praksis dækker de fleste tilfælde, hvor der kan være behov for et indgreb i individets
rettigheder efter EMRK artikel 8.
Nede for er æ t ogle ekse pler fra EMD s praksis edrøre de a e delse af de forskellige legiti e
hensyn i sager vedrørende udsendelse
1
af udlændinge. Det bemærkes
i de for i delse, at EMD s praksis
vedrørende indgreb i retten til privat- og/eller familieliv i forbindelse med udsendelse af udlændinge i vidt
omfang vedrører sager om udvisning som følge af kriminalitet begået i opholdslandet. Der er således i
forbindelse med udarbejdelsen af nærværende notat alene fundet et mindre antal artikel 8-afgørelser om
udsendelse af udlændinge, som ikke (primært) vedrører kriminalitet.
3.3.2.1. Forebygge forbrydelse
Medlemsstaterne har i sager vedrørende indgreb i retten til privat- og/eller familieliv i forbindelse med
udvisning af kriminelle udlændinge ofte henvist til, at indgrebet forfølger hensynet at forebygge uro eller
forbrydelse. EMD har i flere af disse sager vurderet betydningen af den forløbne tid mellem dommen for den
begåede kriminalitet og afgørelsen om inddragelse af opholdstilladelsen og har samtidig inddraget klagerens
1
Samlebetegnelse for alle de situationer, hvor en medlemsstats myndigheder beslutter, at en udlænding, som hidtil har opholdt sig
i medlemsstaten, ikke skal være i medlemsstaten længere (udvisning pga. kriminalitet, inddragelse pga. svig, inddragelse pga.
ændrede forhold, bortfald, ulovligt ophold uden mulighed for (fornyet) opholdstilladelse, evt. andre, jf. nærmere nedenfor)
Side
19
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0021.png
opførsel under sin afsoning og efter sin løsladelse til vurderingen af, hvorvidt der fortsat var grundlag for et
indgreb af hensyn til forebyggelse af uro eller forbrydelse:
I sagen
Sezen v. the Netherlands
(2006)
udtalte EMD i præmis 44:
At the ti e the fi st appli a t as a ested, i.e. o
Jul
, he had ee esidi g la full i the
Netherlands for less than one and a half years, having been granted a residence permit in February 1991.
Applying the sliding scale principle, the authorities of the respondent State attached weight to this
u de ia l sho t du atio of the fi st appli a t s la ful sta i the Nethe la ds efo e he o
itted the
offence. It is nevertheless to be noted that, following his conviction on 20 January 1993, it was not until more
than four years later, namely on 5 June 1997, that the decision was taken to refuse the first applicant
continued residence. Following his early release from prison in April 1995, the first applicant had thus been
allowed to build up even closer ties with the Netherlands for a further two years. In addition, it appears that
the first applicant has not re-offended and that he has been gainfully employed ever since his release from
p iso .
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8.
I sagen
Üner v. the Netherlands (2006),
udtalte EMD derimod i præmis 66:
Fi all , the Cou t otes that the appli a t also o plai ed of the fa t that afte his o i tio a pe iod of
three years elapsed before the authorities decided to withdraw his residence permit and impose an exclusion
order. The Government have explained this delay with reference to domestic law and practice in this area.
The Court considers that it does not have to take a stance on this issue, but notes that the applicant was still
serving his sentence when the impugned measures were taken (contrast
Sezen v. the Netherlands, no.
50252/99, §§ 44 and 48, 31 January 2006).
Moreover, in adopting the latter measures, the authorities
addressed all relevant considerations militating for or against the denial of residence and use of an exclusion
o de .
3.3.2.2. Forebygge uro
I nogle sager vedrørende udsendelse fra Letland af tidligere sovjetstatsborgere har EMD fundet, at indgrebet
i klagernes ret til privat- og/eller familieliv var møntet på at sikre overholdelse af udlændingelovgivningen og
derfor forfulgte et legitimt hensyn, nemlig hensynet til forebyggelse af uro. I alle de tre nedennævnte sager
blev kammerets afgørelse henvist til Storkammeret, og i alle tre sager slettede Storkammeret sagen af
sagslisten for så vidt angår artikel 8-spørgsmålet, da klagerne på tidspunktet for Storkammerets behandling
havde fået legaliseret eller havde mulighed for at legalisere deres ophold i Letland og dermed ikke var i risiko
for at blive udsendt. Storkammeret har således i ingen af de tre sager forholdt sig til artikel 8-vurderingen,
herunder kammerets anvendelse af det legitime hensyn.
I sagen
Sisojeva a.o. v. Latvia (2007),
traf Storkammeret i sin dom af 15. januar 2007 afgørelse om at slette
klagen af sagslisten for så vidt angår artikel 8-spørgsmålet under henvisning til EMRK artikel 37, stk. 1, litra b,
idet klagerne havde mulighed for at lovliggøre deres ophold i Letland og derfor ikke var i risiko for at blive
udsendt.
Side
20
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0022.png
Klagerne
–
et ægtepar og deres fælles barn
–
var sovjetiske statsborgere af russisk oprindelse. Den anden
klager ha de æret udse dt til Letla d so
edle af USSR s æ ede styrker og ha de ligeso de
første
klager opholdt sig i landet, siden de var ca. 20 år gamle. Datteren var født i Letland, og familien var blevet i
landet, efter at faren var færdig med at tjene i hæren. Efter opløsningen af USSR, blev klagerne statsløse.
Klagerne søgte og opnåede at blive indføjet i registret over indbyggere i Letland. Efterfølgende blev der
truffet afgørelse om at slette deres navne fra registret, idet klagerne havde opnået sovjetpas og ladet sig
bopælsregistrere i Rusland, og klagerne blev pålagt at betale en administrativ bøde for overtrædelse af
pasreglerne. Klagerne
–
hvoraf faren og datteren i mellemtiden havde opnået russisk statsborgerskab
–
gjorde overfor de lettiske myndigheder gældende, at de havde ret til permanent opholdstilladelse i henhold
til den russisk-lettiske aftale og loven om ikke-statsborgere. The Senate of the Supreme Court fandt, at det
forhold, at klagerne i hemmelighed havde fået udstedt pas og ladet sig bopælsregistrere i to forskellige lande
samt havde undladt at vedlægge de andre pas og givet urigtige oplysninger til myndighederne i forbindelse
med ansøgning om lovliggørelse af deres ophold, udgjorde en alvorlig krænkelse af den lettiske
udlændingelovgivning. Klagernes ansøgning om opholdstilladelse blev i 2000 afvist, og klagerne blev bedt om
at forlade landet. I 2003 sendte Direktoratet et brev til klagerne om proceduren for lovliggørelse af deres
ophold i Letland. Endvidere beordrede Direktoratet, at den første klager blev indskrevet i registret over
i d yggere so
statsløs og udstyret
med ID gyldig for to år, samt at de to andre klagere blev meddelt
midlertidig opholdstilladelse gyldig for 1�½ år. Lovliggørelse af de to andre klageres ophold var dog afhængigt
af lovliggørelsen af den første klagers ophold. Ingen af klagerne efterkom anvisningen med henblik på at
opnå opholdstilladelse. Klagerne gjorde gældende at have krav på permanent opholdstilladelse.
Under
sagen for kammeret
gjorde medlemsstaten vedrørende det legitime hensyn blandt andet gældende:
. E e assu i g that the e o al of the appli a ts' a es f o the
register of residents had amounted
to an interference with the exercise of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, such interference was in
line with the requirements of the second paragraph of that Article. The measure complained of had been in
accordance with the law , and it had pursued a legitimate aim , namely the protection of public safety and
public order. Equally, given that the second applicant had been a member of the Soviet armed forces
–
which
had been hostile to Latvian independence and democracy
– atio al se u it had also ee a o side atio .
I forhold til af is i ge af at eddele de første klager status so
per a e t reside t o
-
itize
meddele de to andre klagere permanent opholdstilladelse, gjorde medlemsstaten videre gældende:
eller
. E e assu i g that the e had ee su h i te fe e e, the Go e
e t took the ie that, like the
removal of the applicants from the register of residents, it had been compatible with Article 8 § 2 of the
Convention. The alleged interference had been in accordance with the law , had pursued legitimate aims
(the protection of national security and public safety) and, in the absence of any appearance of arbitrary
o du t, had ee p opo tio ate to those ai s.
EMD udtalte i
kammerafgørelsen af 16. juni 2005
i præmisserne 106-110:
. With efe e e fi st of all to the
lawfulness of the measure for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the
Convention, the Court agrees with the Government's assertion that the interference was in accordance with
the law (in this instance section 1 (1) of the Non-Citizens Act and section 35 of the former Aliens Act). Equally,
Side
21
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0023.png
in view of the fact that the measure was designed to ensure compliance with immigration laws, the Court
accepts that it pursued a legitimate aim , namely to prevent disorder .
107. As to whether the impugned measure was necessary in a democratic society , that is, proportionate to
the legitimate aim pursued, the Court notes that the applicants have spent all, or almost all, of their lives in
Latvia. Although they are not of Latvian origin, the fact remains that they have developed personal, social
and economic ties strong enough for them to be regarded as sufficiently well integrated in Latvian society,
even if, as the Government maintain, there are gaps in their knowledge of Latvian (see the Slivenko judgment
cited above, § 124). Similarly, although the second and third applicants have Russian nationality and had an
officially registered residence in Russia, none of the three applicants appears to have developed personal ties
in that country comparable to those they have established in Latvia (ibid., § 125).
108. In these circumstances the Court considers that, in terms of the conditions imposed on the applicants in
order to have their position regularised, only reasons of a particularly serious nature could justify refusal. The
Court has been unable to discern any such reasons in the instant case. While it recognises the right of each
State to take effective steps to ensure compliance with its immigration laws, it considers that a measure of
the kind imposed on the applicants could be considered to be proportionate only if the applicants had acted
in a particularly dangerous manner. In that connection the Court reiterates that most of the similar cases it
has examined under Article 8 of the Convention have related to situations in which the applicants had been
deported after being convicted of serious criminal offences. In the instant case, however, the applicants
received only a modest fine which was not classified as a criminal penalty under Latvian law (see paragraph
18 above).
109. The Court further notes that regularisation of the second and third applicants' status depends on that of
the first applicant (see paragraphs 35 and 87-90 above). In other words, if the first applicant does not take
advantage of the opportunity offered to her to regularise her stay, the situation of the other two applicants
will remain unchanged. The Court considers that, in making the ability of these two applicants to lead a
normal private life contingent on circumstances beyond their control, the domestic authorities who,
admittedly, enjoy a margin of appreciation, have not taken the measures that could have been reasonably
required of them.
110. Accordingly, taking all the circumstances into account, and in particular the long period of insecurity and
legal uncertainty which the applicants have undergone in Latvia, the Court considers that the Latvian
authorities exceeded the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States in this sphere, and did not
strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and the applicants' interest in having
their rights under Article 8 protected. It is therefore unable to find that the interference complained of was
necessary in a democratic society
.
I sagen
Shevanova v. Latvia (2006),
hvor klageren havde afgivet urigtige oplysninger for at opnå
opholdstilladelse, udtalte EMD i kammerafgørelsen:
. The Cou t fu the o side s that the ight of the State to o t ol the e t a d eside e of o
-nationals
within its territory presupposes that it may take dissuasive measures against persons who have broken the
law on immigration. Consequently, the decision to deport the applicant pursued at least one of the aims cited
the Go e
e t, a el that of p e e ti g diso de .
Side
22
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0024.png
I sagen
Kaftailova v. Latvia (2006),
hvor klageren ikke havde foretaget gyldig bopælsregistrering, udtalte EMD
i kammerafgørelsen:
. With ega d fi st of all to the
lawfulness of the interference, the Court acknowledges that it was in
accordance with the law (in this case sections 23(1), 35 and 38 of the former Aliens Act and the decision of
the Supreme Council of 10 June 1992 on the arrangements for entry into force and application of that Act).
Similarly, given the fact that the interference is or was designed to ensure compliance with the immigration
laws, the Court accepts that it pursued a legitimate aim
, a el the
prevention of disorder
.
3.3.2.3. Landets økonomiske velfærd
Medlemsstaterne har i sager vedrørende indgreb i retten til privat- og/eller familieliv i forbindelse med
afbrydelse af udlændinges mulighed for fortsat ophold i medlemsstaten henvist til, at indgrebet forfølger
hensynet til landets økonomiske velfærd. I disse sager kan indgrebet have form af et afslag på at meddele
opholdstilladelse (hvis klageren aldrig har haft eller på det relevante tidspunkt ikke har lovligt ophold) eller
af en inddragelse af en tidligere meddelt opholdstilladelse (hvis klageren har opnået opholdstilladelsen ved
svig eller de forudsætninger, som lå til grund for opholdstilladelsen, ikke længere er til stede). EMD har i flere
af de sager, hvor klageren ikke har haft en opholdstilladelse eller har opnået opholdstilladelsen ved svig,
henvist til, at immigrationskontrol og sikring af overholdelse af medlemsstatens immigrationslovgivning er
legitime hensyn til varetagelse af landets økonomiske velfærd. I (de få) sager om inddragelse af
opholdstilladelse af andre grunde end svig har hensynet til landets økonomiske velfærd været begrundet
konkret i enten situationen i medlemsstaten på det omhandlede tidspunkt eller klagerens egne forhold.
I de nedenfor nævnte sager havde klageren opholdt sig i medlemsstaten uden opholdstilladelse og havde
etableret familie- og/eller privatliv under disse omstændigheder:
I sagen
Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands (2006)
havde klageren aldrig haft lovligt ophold
i opholdslandet.
EMD udtalte i præmisserne 43 og 44:
[…] The Cou t eite ates that pe so s ho, ithout o pl i g ith the egulatio s i fo e, o f o t the
authorities of a Contracting State with their presence in the country as a fait accompli do not, in general, have
any entitlement to expect that a right of residence will be conferred upon them (see Chandra and Others v.
the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003). Nevertheless, the Court finds relevant that in the present
case the Government indicated that lawful residence in the Netherlands would have been possible on the
basis of the fact that the first applicant and Mr Hoogkamer had a lasting relationship between June 1994 and
January 1997 (see paragraph 34 above). Although there is no doubt that a serious reproach may be made of
the first applicant's cavalier attitude to Dutch immigration rules, this case should be distinguished from others
in which the Court considered that the persons concerned could not at any time have reasonably expected to
be able to continue family life in the host country (see, for example,
Solomon,
cited above).
44. In view of the far-reaching consequences which an expulsion would have on the responsibilities which the
first applicant has as a mother, as well as on her family life with her young daughter, and taking into account
that it is clearly in Rachael's best interests for the first applicant to stay in the Netherlands, the Court considers
that in the particular circumstances of the case the economic well-being of the country does not outweigh the
Side
23
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0025.png
applicants' rights under Article 8, despite the fact that the first applicant was residing illegally in the
Netherlands at the time of Rachael's birth. Indeed, by attaching such paramount importance to this latter
ele e t, the autho ities a e o side ed to ha e i dulged i e essi e fo alis .
I sagen
Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (2007)
havde klageren ligeledes aldrig haft lovligt ophold i
opholdslandet.
EMD udtalte i præmisserne 50, 51 og 53:
50. In principle, the Court does not consider unreasonable a requirement that an alien having achieved a
settled status in a Contracting State and who seeks family reunion there must demonstrate that he/she has
sufficient independent and lasting income, not being welfare benefits, to provide for the basic costs of
subsistence of his or her family members with whom reunion is sought. As to the question whether such a
requirement was reasonable in the instant case, the Court considers that it has not been demonstrated that,
between 1990 and 1998, Mr G. has in fact ever complied with the minimum income requirement or at least
made any efforts to comply with this requirement whereas the applicant's claim that he is incapacitated for
work has remained wholly unsubstantiated.
51. The Court further notes that, between 4 September 1992 and 8 November 2005, the applicant has
amassed various convictions of criminal offences attracting a prison sentence of three years or more, thus
rendering her immigration status in the Netherlands even more precarious as this entailed the risk of an
exclusion order being imposed, which risk eventually materialised. On this point the Court reiterates that,
where the admission of aliens is concerned, Contracting States are in principle entitled to expel an alien
convicted of criminal offences (see
Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-...).
[…]
53. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that it cannot be said that the
Netherlands authorities have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant's interests on the one hand
and its own interest in controlling immigration and public expenditure and in the prevention of disorder or
crime on the other. Consequently, there has been no violation of the applicant's right to respect for her rights
gua a teed A ti le of the Co e tio .
I sagen
Nnyanzi v. the United Kingdom (2008)
var klagerens ansøgning om asyl blevet afvist, hvorefter
opholdslandet gjorde tiltag med henblik på, at klageren skulle forlade landet.
Medlemsstaten gjorde i præmis 71 gældende, at:
[…] E e assu i g that the appli a t had esta lished p i ate life i the U ited Ki gdo a d that it had ee
interfered with, such interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the
maintenance and enforcement of immigration control, inter alia, for the preservation of the economic
well-being of the country, the protection of health and morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others and was p
opo tio ate i the i u sta es.
I præmis 76 udtalte EMD, at:
Side
24
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0026.png
The Cou t does ot o side it e essa to dete i e hethe the appli a t s a ou ta
studies,
involvement with her church and friendship of unspecified duration with a man during her stay of almost ten
years in the United Kingdom constitute private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. Even
assu i g this to e the ase, it fi ds that he p oposed e o al to Uga da is i a o da e ith the la
and is motivated by a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance and enforcement of immigration control.
[…]
Sagen
Nacic and others v. Sweden (2012)
omhandler en familie, som indrejste sammen og søgte om asyl.
Familien bestod af to forældre og deres to sønner. Den ældste søn blev meddelt opholdstilladelse på
baggrund af hans helbred, mens de tre andre personer fik afslag på asyl. Sønnen, som fik opholdstilladelse,
var på dette tidspunkt fyldt 18 år.
EMD udtalte i præmis 79, at:
[…]The Cou t fu the a epts that the legiti ate ai pu sued as to e su e a effe ti e i ple e tatio of
immigration control and hence to preserve the economic well-being of Sweden, within the meaning of
paragraph 2
of A ti le .
Sagen
Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (2014)
omhandler en kvinde, som indrejste på et visum for at besøge en
slægtning i opholdslandet. Hun giftede sig efterfølgende med en statsborger fra opholdslandet, og de fik
sammen tre børn. Klageren søgte flere gange om opholdstilladelse, men fik afvist sin ansøgning, idet hun ikke
havde søgt fra sit hjemland. Klageren blev 16 år efter sin indrejse tilbageholdt med henblik på udsendelse til
sit hjemland.
EMD udtalte i præmis 121, at:
The e t al issue i this ase is hethe , ea i g i
i d the a gi of app e iatio affo ded to States i
immigration matters, a fair balance has been struck between the competing interests at stake, namely the
personal interests of the applicant, her husband and their children in maintaining their family life in the
Netherlands on the one hand and, on the other, the public order interests of the respondent Government in
controlling immigration. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is questionable whether general
immigration policy considerations of themselves can be regarded as sufficient justification for refusing the
appli a t eside e i the Nethe la ds.
Som anført vedrørte de fem ovennævnte sager således personer, som havde opholdt sig i længere tid i
medlemsstaterne uden opholdstilladelse.
I
Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer
henviste EMD direkte til landets økonomiske velfærd som det legitime
hensyn i forbindelse med klagerens ikke-lovlige ophold, mens EMD i
Konstatinov
indledningsvis
konstaterede, at det hverken generelt eller i den konkrete sag er urimeligt at kræve, at en fastboende
udlænding, som søger familiesammenføring,
[…] de o st ate[s] that he/she has suffi ie t i depe de t a d
lasting income, not being welfare benefits, to provide for the basic costs of subsistence of his or her family
e e s […]
, og at det i den konkrete sag ikke var dokumenteret, at klageren
has i fa t e e o plied
with the minimum income requirement or at least made any efforts to comply with this requirement whereas
the applicant's claim that he is incapacitated for work has remained wholly unsubstantiated
.
Side
25
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0027.png
Herefter har EMD i
Konstatinov
a gi et, at det legiti e he sy ar edle sstate s i teresse i
controlling
immigration a
d pu li e pe ditu e a d i the p e e tio of diso de o i e
(som følge af den kvindelige
klagers kriminalitet, se dommens præmis 51 ovenfor).
I sagen
Nnyanzi
ha de edle sstate so legiti t he sy la dt a det he ist til
maintenance and
enforcement of immigration control, inter alia, for the preservation of the economic well-being of the
ou t
, og EMD ekræftede, at i dgre et
is motivated by a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance and
e fo e e t of i
ig atio o t ol .
I
Nacic
sammenkoblede EMD direkte hensynet til at sikre en effektiv implementering af immigrationskontrol
med landets økonomiske velfærd,
idet EMD a førte, at
the legitimate aim pursued was to ensure an
effective implementation of immigration control and hence to preserve the economic well-
ei g of S ede
[understreget her].
I
Jeunesse
he iste EMD til he sy et til
the public order interests of the respondent Government in
o t olli g i
ig atio
. EMD udtalte dog, at selvom der var tale om et legitimt hensyn, kunne dette hensyn
i de ko krete sag ikke
be regarded as sufficient justification for refusing the applicant residence in the
Netherlands
.
I sagen
Osman v. Denmark (2011)
havde klageren tidligere haft opholdstilladelse i medlemsstaten.
Opholdstilladelsen var imidlertid bortfaldet, efter at klagerens forældre havde sendt hende på en
længerevarende genopdragelsesrejse til familiens tidligere opholdsland. Klageren var efterfølgende
genindrejst i medlemsstaten. EMD fandt, at medlemsstatens afslag på at meddele klageren opholdstilladelse
på ny udgjorde et indgreb i klagerens familie- og privatliv, og udtalte i præmis 58, at:
It is ot i dispute that the i pug ed easu e had a asis i do esti la , a el se tio s
subsection 1 (ii), and pursued the legitimate
ai of i
ig atio o t ol.
a d
I nedenstående to sager var klagerens opholdstilladelse i medlemsstaten blevet inddraget/nægtet forlænget
som følge af den pågældendes skilsmisse fra ægtefællen, som havde statsborgerskab/permanent
opholdstilladelse i medlemsstaten. Begge sager vedrørte klagerens ret til familieliv med et fællesbarn i
medlemsstaten:
I afgørelsen
Berrehab. v. the Netherlands (1988),
præmis 26 udtalte EMD:
The Cou t has ea hed the sa e o lusio . It poi ts out, ho e e , that the legiti ate ai pu sued as the
p ese atio of the ou t s e o o i ell-being
within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2)
rather than the prevention of disorder: the Government were in fact concerned, because of the population
de sit , to egulate the la ou a ket.
I sagen
Ciliz v. the Netherlands (2000)
gjorde medlemsstaten i præmis 53 gældende:
The espo de t Go e
e t asse ted that the p ese t ase should e disti guished f o the ase of
Berrehab v. the Netherlands (judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138), with which the Commission had
sought to compare it, on two clear grounds. In the first place, the interest of the economic well-being of the
country carried more weight in the instant case in view of the fact that the applicant had been in receipt of
welfare benefits on expiry of the one year period which he had been granted to find employment.
Side
26
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0028.png
Furthermore, the applicant had only irregularly made financial contributions to the care and upbringing of his
son. Mr Berrehab, on the other hand, had been gainfully employed and was bearing part of the costs of his
daughter's care and upbringing (ibid., pp. 8-
, §§ a d .
I præmis 65 udtalte EMD:
I the Cou t's ie , the i pug ed easu e as ai ed at the p ese atio of
the economic well-being of the
ou t a d thus se ed a legiti ate ai
ithi the ea i g of the se o d pa ag aph of A ti le .
I begge sager var det legitime hensyn således landets økonomiske velfærd, i
Berrehab
begrundet med
hensynet til at regulere arbejdsmarkedet i lyset af befolkningstætheden og i
Ciliz
begrundet i klagerens
økonomiske forhold. I begge sager fandt EMD dog, at indgrebet ikke var proportionalt med det forfulgte
hensyn.
I nogle sager var klagerens opholdstilladelse i medlemsstaten blevet inddraget som følge af, at
opholdstilladelsen var opnået ved svig. Begge de to nedenfor nævnte sager vedrørte klagerens ret til
familieliv i medlemsstaten:
I sagen
Nunez v. Norway (2011)
indrejste klageren under en falsk identitet, idet hun tidligere var blevet udvist
fra landet med indrejseforbud. Klageren opnåede opholdstilladelse på baggrund af den falske identitet og
stiftede familie i opholdslandet ved at gifte sig og få børn. Opholdsstaten inddrog opholdstilladelsen fem år
efter, at klageren var indrejst, under henvisning til at den var opnået på baggrund af svig.
EMD udtalte i præmis 71:
B a of a p
eliminary observation the Court takes note of the rationale of the Norwegian legislator in
authorising the imposition of expulsion with a re-entry ban as an administrative sanction (see paragraph 50
of the Sup e e Cou t s judg e t uoted at pa ag aph
a
ove). Whilst such offences could normally also
lead to criminal liability, it was deemed advantageous in the interest of procedural economy to authorise
expulsion even in the absence of a criminal conviction. Since it would be impossible for the authorities to
e e ise effe ti e o t ol of all i
ig a ts e t i to a d sta i No a , to a g eat e te t the s ste
ould
have to be based on trust that the immigration law be respected by those to which it applied, notably the
expectation that foreign nationals provide correct information when applying for residence. If serious or
epeated iolatio s of the i
ig atio la
e e to e et ith i pu it , it ould u de i e the pu li s
respect for that law. Since an application for a residence permit would be rejected in the event of failure to
meet the conditions for residence, a refusal of such an application would not in itself constitute a sanction for
the provision of false information. Therefore, the possibility for the authorities to react with expulsion would
constitute an important means of general deterrence against gross or repeated violations of the Immigration
A t. I the Cou t s ie , a s he e of i ple e tatio of atio al i
ig atio la
hi h, as he e, is ased o
administrative sanctions in the form of expulsion does not as such raise an issue of failure to comply with
A ti le of the Co e tio . Agai st this a kg ou d, the appli a t s a gu e t to the effe t that the pu li
interest in an expulsion would be preponderant only in instances where the person concerned has been
convicted of a criminal offence, be it serious or not, must be rejected (see Darren
Omoregie and Others v.
Norway,
no. 265/07, § 67, 31 July 2008;
Kaya v. the Netherlands (dec.) no 44947/98, 6 November 2001).
Side
27
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0029.png
I sagen
Antwi and others v. Norway (2012)
opnåede den ene klager opholdstilladelse på baggrund af urigtige
oplysninger om sin nationalitet. Opholdstilladelsen blev således opnået på baggrund af svig.
EMD udtalte i præmisserne 90 og 102:
In applying the above principles to the present case, the Court notes in the first place that the impugned
expulsion and five-year prohibition on re-entry had been imposed on the first applicant in view of the gravity
of his violations of the Immigration Act. The Court sees no reason to question the assessment of the national
i
ig atio autho ities a d ou ts as to the agg a ated ha a te of the fi st appli a t s ad i ist ati e
offences under the Act. Moreover, as already held on previous occasions, the possibility for the authorities to
react with expulsion would constitute an important means of general deterrence against gross or repeated
violations of the Immigration Act (see Nunez, cited above, § 71, and Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway,
no. 265/07, § 67, 31 July 2008; see also
Kaya v. the Netherlands (dec.) no 44947/98,
6 November 2001). A
scheme of implementation of national immigration law which, as here, is based on administrative sanctions
in the form of expulsion does not as such raise an issue of failure to comply with Article 8 of the Convention
(see Nunez and Darren Omoregie and Others,
ited a o e, i ide . I the Cou t s ie , the pu li i te est i
fa ou of o de i g the fi st appli a t s e pulsio eighed hea il i the ala e he assessing
the issue of
proportionality under Article 8 of the Convention (see Nunez, cited above, § 73).
[…]
. Also, the du atio of the i
ig atio autho ities p o essi g of the atte as ot so lo g as to gi e
reason to question whether the impugned measure fulfilled the interests of swiftness and efficiency of
immigration control that was the intended purpose of such administrative measures (compare Nunez, cited
above, § 82). On the contrary, in October 2005, only a few months after the discovery of the
fi st appli a t s
fraud in July 2005, he was put on notice that he might be expelled from Norway. In May 2006 the Directorate
ordered his expulsion and prohibition on re-e
t a d ga e hi u til Jul
to lea e the ou t .
I hverken
Nunez
eller
Antwi
fremgår det således direkte, hvilket af de legitime hensyn indgrebene forfølger,
men i begge domme henviser EMD til hensynet til, at muligheden for at foretage administrativ udvisning i
sager o s ig udgjorde
an important means of general deterrence against gross or repeated violations of
the Immigration Act.
3.3.2.4. Den nationale sikkerhed
Letland har i nogle sager vedrørende indgreb i retten til privatliv i forbindelse med inddragelse af russiske
familiers opholdstilladelser henvist til, at indgrebet forfulgte hensynet til den nationale sikkerhed.
I
Slivenko v. Latvia (2003)
var klagerne, som var af russisk oprindelse, blevet udsendt fra Letland under
henvisning til, at de var familiemedlemmer til en russisk militærperson og derfor forpligtede til at forlade
Letland i forbindelse med tilbagetrækningen af de russiske tropper fra Letland som følge af landets opnåelse
af uafhængighed fra USSR. Sagerne vedrørte klagernes privatliv, idet de havde levet hele eller hovedparten
af deres liv i Letland. EMD udtalte i præmisserne 110-112:
. The espo de t Go e
e t su itted that the appli a ts' e o al f o Lat ia had pursued
the
legitimate aims of the protection of national security and the prevention of disorder and crime. They
Side
28
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0030.png
emphasised in this connection that the measure had to
e see i the o te t of the
eradication of the
consequences of the illegal occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union . The applicants contested those
submissions, none of the above aims having been mentioned in the domestic proceedings concerning their
own case, which had been limited to reviewing the lawfulness of their residential status in Latvia. The third
party objected to the respondent Government's statement describing the situation of Latvia prior to 1991 as
having been illegal under international law.
111. The Court considers that the aim of the particular measures taken in respect of the applicants cannot be
dissociated from the wider context of the constitutional and international law arrangements made after
Latvia regained its independence in 1991. In this context it is not necessary to deal with the previous situation
of Latvia under international law. It is sufficient to note that after the dissolution of the USSR, former Soviet
military troops remained in Latvia under Russian jurisdiction, at the time when both Latvia and Russia were
independent States. The Court therefore accepts that with the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of
the Russian troops and the measures for the implementation of this treaty, the Latvian authorities sought to
protect the interest of the country's national security.
112. In short, the measures of the applicants' removal can be said to have been imposed in pursuance of the
p ote tio of atio al se u it , a legiti ate ai
ithi the ea i g of A ti le § of the Co e tio .
3.3.3. Nødvendighedsprincippet, herunder proportionalitetsafvejningen
Udover kravet om opfyldelse af det udvidede legalitetsprincip, fremgår det af artikel 8, stk. 2, at indgrebet
ydermere skal være nødvendigt i et demokratisk samfund for at opnå et eller flere af de i bestemmelsen
opregnede legitime hensyn.
EMD har i sin praksis fastlagt, hvad der ligger i nødvendighedsprincippet. I
Berrehab v. the Nederlands (1988)
udtalte EMD således i præmis 28:
I dete i i g hethe a i te fe e e as
necessary in a democratic society , the Court makes allowance
for the margin of appreciation that is left to the Contracting States (see in particular the
W v. the United
Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987,
Series A no. 121-A, p. 27, § 60 (b) and (d), and the Olsson judgment of 24
March 1988, Series A no. 130, pp. 31-32, § 67).
In this connection, it accepts that the Convention does not in principle prohibit the Contracting States from
regulating the entry a
d le gth of sta of alie s. A o di g to the Cou t s esta lished ase-law
(see, inter alia,
the judgments previously cited), however, necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing
social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
[understreget her]
Tilsvarende udtalte EMD i
Üner v. the Nederlands (2006),
præmis 54:
The Cou t eaffi s at the outset that a State is e titled, as a atte of i te atio al la a d su je t to its
treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many
other authorities,
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom,
28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no.
94, and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI). The
Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and, in
pursuance of their task of maintaining public order, Contracting States have the power to expel an alien
Side
29
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0031.png
convicted of criminal offences. However, their decisions in this field must, in so far as they may interfere with
a right protected under paragraph 1 of Article 8, be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic
society, that is to say justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued (see
Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998,
§ 52, Reports 1998-I;
Mehemi v. France, 26 September 1997,
§ 34, Reports 1997-VI;
Boultif,
cited above, § 46; and
Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99,
§ 113, ECHR 2003-
X .
[understreget her]
Af
Guide ,
punkt 27, fremgår:
Su se ue tl , the Cou t has affi ed that i dete i i g hethe the i pug ed easu es e e
necessary
in a democratic society ; it will consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to
justify them were relevant and sufficient and whether the measures were proportionate to the legitimate
ai s pu sued.
Nødvendighedsprincippet skal være opfyldt, uanset om indgrebet består i, at de nationale myndigheder
træffer afgørelse om bortfald, inddragelse eller nægtelse af forlængelse af en opholdstilladelse.
Dette ses anvendt i praksis i bl.a. sagen
Osman v. Denmark (2011),
hvor klageren af sine forældre var blevet
sendt til familiens tidligere opholdsland for at bo hos nogle familiemedlemmer. Klagerens opholdstilladelse
bortfaldt på grund af længerevarende ophold i udlandet, hvorefter klageren søgte opholdslandet om
dispensation for bortfald af sin opholdstilladelse. Den indklagede stat afslog dette, hvorefter sagen blev
indbragt for EMD.
EMD udtalte i præmis 65:
It also eite ates that fo a settled ig a t ho has la full spe t all
or the major part of his or her childhood
and youth in a host country, very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion
(see,
Maslov v. Austria [GC],
quoted above, § 75)
.
In the present case the applicant was refused restoration of her lapsed residence permit, as opposed to being
expelled due to having committed a crime. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that she spent the formative years
of her childhood and youth in Denmark, namely from the age of seven to fifteen years old, that she spoke
Danish, that she had received schooling in Denmark until August 2002, and that all her close family remained
in Denmark. In these circumstances, the Court also considers that very serious reasons were required to justify
the autho ities efusal to esto e the appli a t s eside e pe it, he she applied f o Ke a i August
.
Selve proportionalitetsafvejningen skal foretages mellem de to modsatrettede hensyn:
Det eller de hensyn, som staten påberåber sig, jf. undtagelsesbestemmelserne i artikel 8, stk. 2, og
individets ret til respekt for privat- og/eller familielivet, jf. artikel 8, stk. 1.
Afvejningen skal som anført under punkt 2.5 som udgangspunkt foretages på tidspunktet, hvor afgørelsen
bliver endelig.
Side
30
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0032.png
Hvorledes de to modsatrettede hensyn skal vægtes overfor hinanden, er afhængigt af de faktuelle
omstændigheder i den konkrete sag.
Proportionalitetsprincippet indebærer, at et indgreb skal være egnet til at opnå det ønskede formål, og at
indgrebet ikke må gå videre end nødvendigt for at opnå det ønskede formål.
Det fremgår af Jon Fridrik Kjølbros bog
De Eu opæiske Me eske ettighedsko e tio fo p aktike e
(2017),
side 768, at for at kravet om proportionalitet er opfyldt, skal de anvendte foranstaltninger være
i elige og eg ede til at op å det legiti e fo ål .
Endvidere anføres det samme sted, at der ligeledes er et krav om, at
de ikke
i dg i e de fo a stalt i ge , de e eg ede til at opf lde det legiti e fo ål.
å fi des a d e og
i de
EMD har i sin praksis udtalt, at vægtningen af de enkelte elementer i proportionalitetsafvejningen afhænger
af de konkrete omstændigheder i hver enkelt sag, se f.eks.
Maslov v. Austria (2008),
hvor EMD i præmis 70
udtalte:
The Cou t ould st ess that hile the ite ia hi h e e ge f o its ase-law
and are spelled out in the
Boultif and Üner judgments are meant to facilitate the application of Article 8 in expulsion cases by domestic
courts, the weight to be attached to the respective criteria will inevitably vary according to the specific
i u sta es of ea h ase.
Der skal derefter på den ene side i den samlede afvejning ses på de elementer, som taler for hensynet til
klageren, herunder tilknytningen til opholdslandet og tilknytningen til hjemlandet, og på den anden side ses
på det eller de af staten påberåbte legitime formål og de faktiske forhold, som ligger til grund for
medlemsstatens indgreb.
EMD anvender i sin praksis følgende formulering, se fx
Maslov v. Austria (2008),
præmis 76:
Fi all , the Cou t eite ates that atio al autho ities e jo a e tai
a gi of app e iatio he assessi g
whether an interference with a right protected by Article 8 was necessary in a democratic society and
proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 113, ECHR 2003-X,
and Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 28, Series A no. 138). However, the Court has consistently
held that its task consists in ascertaining whether the impugned measures struck a fair balance between the
ele a t i te ests, a el the i di idual s ights p ote ted
the Convention on the one hand and the
o
u it s i te ests o the othe
(see, among many other authorities, Boultif, cited above, § 47). Thus, the
State s a gi of
appreciation goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation
and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see, mutatis mutandis, Société Colas
Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 47, ECHR 2002-III). The Court is therefore empowered to give the
final ruling on whether an expulsion measure is reconcilable with Article 8.
[understreget her]
Nede for ge e gås først i afs it . . . etyd i ge af aggru de for
praksis vedrørende vægtningen heraf i proportionalitetsafvejningen.
edle sstate s i dgre og EMD s
Dernæst gennemgås i afsnit 3.3.3.2 de elementer, som indgår i klagerens privat-
og/eller fa ilieli og EMD s
praksis vedrørende vægtningen heraf i proportionalitetsafvejningen.
Side
31
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0033.png
I afsnit 3.3.3.
ge e gås etyd i ge af i dgre ets karakter og arighed og EMD s praksis edrøre de
vægtningen heraf i proportionalitetsafvejningen.
E delig ge e gås i afs it . . . EMD s praksis edrøre de
proportionalitetsafvejningen.
edle sstater es
argi of appre iatio
ed
3.3.3.1. Betydningen af baggrunden for medlemsstaternes indgreb
EMD har i sin praksis tillagt de påberåbte legitime hensyn forskellig vægt i proportionalitetsafvejningen, alt
efter hvilke faktuelle forhold, der har ligget til grund for medlemsstatens indgreb i individets ret til respekt
for privat- og/eller familieliv.
EMD s praksis edrøre de i dgre i rette til pri at-
og/eller familieliv i forbindelse med udsendelse
2
af
udlændinge vedrører i vidt omfang sager om udvisning som følge af kriminalitet begået i opholdslandet. Der
er således i forbindelse med udarbejdelsen af nærværende notat alene fundet et mindre antal artikel 8-
afgørelser om udsendelse af udlændinge, som ikke (primært) vedrører kriminalitet.
I flere sager, hvor klageren har begået alvorlig kriminalitet, såsom drab eller narkokriminalitet, har EMD efter
en konkret vurdering tillagt hensynet til forebyggelse af forbrydelse så stor vægt, at EMD har statueret, at en
(midlertidig) udvisning af den pågældende ikke udgjorde en krænkelse, selvom klageren havde en meget
stærk tilk yt i g til opholdsla det. Det fre går e d idere af EMD s praksis, at af ej i ge er e a de ,
såfremt der er tale om mindre alvorlig kriminalitet.
So også a ført i
Handbook
, side 86,
[…] i o side i g
whether the deportation or exclusion order of a criminal offender is compatible with the Convention, due
regard will have to be paid to all elements and a fair balance will have to be achieved. The decision, eventually,
is very much fact-se
siti e.
I flere sager, hvor klageren ikke har haft en opholdstilladelse eller har opnået opholdstilladelsen ved svig, har
EMD he ist til he sy et til, at ulighede for at foretage ad i istrati ud is i g udgjorde
an important
means of general deterrence against gross or repeated
iolatio s of the I
ig atio A t
og har ofte tillagt
det vægt, at klageren på intet tidspunkt har haft en berettiget forventning om at kunne udøve sit privat-
og/eller familieliv i opholdsstaten.
I (de få) sager, hvor klageren har haft opholdstilladelse i medlemsstaten, men denne er inddraget, fordi de
forudsætninger, som lå til grund for opholdstilladelsen, ikke længere er til stede, har EMD foretaget en anden
afvejning.
Nede for ge gi es ekse pler på EMD s proportio alitetsaf ej i g i sager, h or
klageren har begået alvorlig
kriminalitet, herunder gentagen kriminalitet, sager hvor klageren har begået mindre alvorlig kriminalitet,
sager hvor klageren har opnået opholdstilladelsen ved svig, sager hvor klageren ikke har haft lovligt ophold i
2
Samlebetegnelse for alle de situationer, hvor en medlemsstats myndigheder beslutter, at en udlænding, som hidtil har opholdt sig
i medlemsstaten, ikke skal være i medlemsstaten længere (udvisning pga. kriminalitet, inddragelse pga. svig, inddragelse pga.
ændrede forhold, bortfald, ulovligt ophold uden mulighed for (fornyet) opholdstilladelse, evt. andre, jf. nærmere nedenfor)
Side
32
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0034.png
medlemsstaten, sager hvor klageren tidligere har haft lovligt ophold, og sager hvor klageren er blevet
meddelt afslag på familiesammenføring.
3.3.3.1.1. Alvorlig kriminalitet
I sagen
El Boujaïdi v. France (1997)
blev klageren som 30-årig udvist på baggrund af en dom for at have
indsmuglet heroin. Han blev idømt tre års fængsel og blev udvist med indrejseforbud for bestandigt. I den
efterfølgende appelsag blev dommen ændret til seks års fængsel, mens udvisningen blev stadfæstet. Efter
sin løsladelse forblev han ulovligt i opholdslandet og blev efterfølgende arresteret for forsøg på røveri.
Klageren blev idømt et års fængsel for røveriforsøget og for sit ulovlige ophold.
EMD udtalte i præmis 33:
Ho e e , the Cou t o se es that he a i ed i F a e i
at the
age of 7 and lived there until 26 August
1993. He received most of his schooling there and worked there for several years. In addition, his parents, his
three sisters and his brother
–
with whom it was not contested that he had remained in contact
–
live there
(see paragraph 7 above). Consequently, the Court is in no doubt that enforcement of the exclusion
order
a ou ted to i te fe e e ith the appli a t s ight to espe t fo his p i ate a d fa il life.
Om proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 40:
The Cou t s task the efo e o sists i as e tai i g hethe the easu e i issue st u k a fai ala e
et ee the ele a t i te ests, a el the appli a t s ight to espe t fo his p i ate a d fa il life, o the
one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other.
The Court notes that Mr El Boujaïdi arrived in France at the age of 7 and lived there lawfully from 1974 until
19 June 1991 (the date of his release
–
see paragraph 13 above). He received most of his education there, he
worked there and his parents, his three sisters and his brother live there (see paragraph 7 above).
However, while he asserted that he had no close family in Morocco, he did not claim that he knew no Arabic
or that he had never returned to Morocco before the exclusion order was enforced. It also seems that he has
never shown any desire to acquire French nationality. Accordingly, even though most of his family and social
ties are in France, it has not been established that he has lost all links with his country of origin other than his
nationality. In addition, the applicant had a previous conviction
– a se te e of thi t o ths i p iso e t
having been imposed on him by the Annecy Criminal Court for heroin dealing in 1987
–
when the Lyons Court
of Appeal se
te ed hi to si ea s i p iso e t a d o de ed his pe a e t e lusio f o F e h
territory for drug use and drug trafficking (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). Once he was released, and at a
time when he was unlawfully present in France, he continued to lead a life of crime and committed an
attempted robbery (see paragraph 13 above). The seriousness of the offence on account of which the measure
i issue as i posed o the appli a t a d his su se ue t o du t ou t hea il agai st hi .
I præmis 41 udtalte EMD, at der ikke forelå en krænkelse af artikel 8.
I sagen
Dalia v. France (1998)
var klageren blevet dømt for narkokriminalitet og efterfølgende udvist fra
opholdslandet.
Om proportionalitetsvurderingen på grund af den alvorlige kriminalitet, udtalte EMD i præmis 54:
Side
33
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0035.png
The Cou t otes fu the that, as the Go e
e t poi ted out,
the French legislature, in restricting (other than
in the exceptional cases provided for in section 28 bis of the Ordinance of 1945) relief from exclusion orders
to aliens who had complied with such an order, had wished to remove the benefit of such relief from those
who remained in France unlawfully. Applying this rule of procedure
–
which has a legitimate aim
–
to the
applicant cannot in itself entail a breach of Article 8. In support of her application to have the exclusion order
lifted, Mrs Dalia relied mainly on the fact that she was the mother of a French child. The evidence shows that
the applicant formed this vital family link when she was in France illegally. She could not be unaware of the
esulti g i se u it . I the Cou t s ie , this situation,
which was created at a time when she was excluded
from French territory, cannot therefore be decisive.
Furthermore, the exclusion order made as a result of her conviction was a penalty for dangerous dealing in
heroin. In view of the devastating effects
of d ugs o people s li es, the Cou t u de sta ds h the autho ities
show great firmness with regard to those who actively contribute to the spread of this scourge. Irrespective
of the sentence passed on her, the fact that Mrs Dalia took part in such trafficking still weighs as heavily in
the balance. [understreget her]
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at indgrebet ikke havde været uproportionelt, og statuerede, at der ikke var
sket en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
I sagen
Balogun v. the United Kingdom (2012)
udtalte EMD I præmis 53:
As
previously stated, very strong reasons are required to justify the deportation of settled migrants. In the
case of this particular applicant, moreover, it is not in doubt that his deportation to Nigeria will have a very
serious impact on his private life, given his length of residence in the United Kingdom and his limited ties to
his ou t of o igi . Ho e e , the Cou t has paid spe ifi ega d to the appli a t s histo of epeated, d ugs-
related offending and the fact that the majority of his offending was committed when he was an adult, and
also to the a eful a d app op iate o side atio that has ee gi e to the appli a t s ase the do esti
autho ities. With these fa to s i
i d, the Cou t fi ds that the i te fe e e ith the appli a t s p i ate
life
caused by his deportation would not be disproportionate in all the circumstances of the case. It therefore
follo s that his depo tatio to Nige ia ould ot a ou t to a iolatio of A ti le of the Co e tio .
I sagen
Salija v. Switzerland (2017)
var klageren blevet idømt en fængselsstraf på fem år og tre måneder for
uagtsomt manddrab, begået i forbindelse med et gaderæs, hvor klageren havde mistet herredømmet over
bilen, hvorved hans passager var blevet dræbt. De nationale domstole fandt, at klageren havde optrådt
uforsvarligt i den forbindelse. Klagerens opholdstilladelse blev efterfølgende inddraget. Klageren havde tillige
en ældre betinget dom for underslæb.
I præmis 44 udtalte EMD om grovheden af den begåede kriminalitet:
[…] The Cou t o side s that the offe e as ha a te ised a high deg ee of e kless ess a d that e pe t
reports could not entirely exclude the possibility that the applicant would engage in a car race again, despite
his maturation process. The Court takes into account that the prison sentence of five years and three months
ea s testi o to the se e it of the offe e.
Om klagerens personlige forhold udtalte EMD i præmisserne 45 og 48-52:
Side
34
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
. As ega ds the le gth of the appli a t s sta i S itze la d, the Cou t o se es that he a i ed i
Switzerland in 1989 at the age of nine and lived in Switzerland for more than twenty years. His stay in
S itze la d as, thus, of a o side a le le gth of ti e.
. As ega ds the appli a t s fa il situatio , he has ee
a ied to his ife si e
a d it has,
explicitly, not been contested by the respondent Government that real and effective family existed between
the appli a t, his ife a d thei t o hild e . It has to e oted that the appli a t s ife ould ot k o
about the offences at issue at the time when she entered into a family relationship with the applicant, as the
couple married in 1999 and thus prior to the commission of the offences in 2000. It has to be noted that the
applicant, with the exception of the purchase and consumption of marihuana, for which he was fined in 2007,
committed the criminal offences prior to the birth of his children.
. The Cou t o se es that the appli a t s ife is a atio al of
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ,
i.e. of the ou t to hi h the appli a t as e pelled. The appli a t s ife, ho as o i
, li ed the e
until 1990 and knows Al
a ia a d the ou t s ultu e. She has elati es the e a d isits the ou t e e
year. The domestic courts considered that she could reintegrate in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia without encountering serious difficulties, despite having lived in Switzerland for the past twenty
ea s. The Cou t otes that the appli a t s ife hose to follo hi to Ma edo ia i
a d li ed ith hi
there until 2015, despite the fact that she could have remained in Switzerland as a holder of a permanent
residence permit and maintained contact with the applicant through visits and means of telecommunication.
. The Cou t o se es that the ouple s hild e , o i
a di
, a e like ise the atio als of
the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . At the time the expulsion order became binding, the elder child was
in primary school, whereas the younger one was in kindergarten. They were, thus, still of an adaptable age.
While the Court accepts that the economic living conditions in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
are less favourable than in Switzerland, it also notes that the former is a Contracting State of the Council of
Eu ope. It fu the a epts that the hild e k e the ou t s ultu e to a e tai e te t due to isits the
had made together with their mother. While it is not clear to what extent the children knew Albanian, it does
not appear arbitrary to accept that the presence of their parents, who both originate from the country, as
well as further relatives from their mother
s side, ould alle iate thei diffi ulties i i teg ati g i
the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . Moreover, it has to be noted that the children were not forced to move
there, but could have remained in Switzerland with their mother as holders of permanent residence permits
and maintained contact with the applicant through visits and means of telecommunication.
. As to the solidit of the appli a t s so ial, ultu al a d fa il ties ith the host ou t , the Cou t otes
that the applicant had lived in Switzerland for over twenty years, which had thus become the centre of his life.
His pa e ts a d si li gs li e the e. While the le el of the appli a t s so ial a d ultu al i teg atio is i i
dispute, it has to be noted that he worked in different jobs, with only brief periods of unemployment, prior to
and following his imprisonment, and that he speaks German.
. As to the appli a t s ties to the ou t of desti atio , the Cou t otes that the appli a t as o i
the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and spent the first nine years of his life there. While he does not have
any relatives of his own there, his wife does. Likewise, even though he claims that he could not write well in
Albanian and last visited the country in 2004, he still had considerable cultural and social ties to the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
.
Side
35
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0037.png
Endelig lagde EMD i præmis 53 vægt på, at klagerens udvisning ikke var permanent, da hans indrejseforbud
var tidsbegrænset, og at han kunne søge om, at det blev suspenderet i kortere perioder:
Mo eo e , the Cou t otes that the appli a t s e pulsio f o S iss te ito is ot pe a e t, as the e t
ban against him is limited to seven years. While the entry ban is thus, without any doubt, of a long duration,
it should be noted that the applicant could ask for its temporary suspension for short periods of time in order
to visit his wife and children in Switzerland (see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph 26 above).
What is o e, the appli a t s ife a d the ouple s hild e elo ated to
the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia in late 2011 and enjoyed their family life with the applicant there until returning to Switzerland
in August 2015 to avoid the expiry of their permanent residence permit (see paragraphs 22 and 24 above). In
othe o ds, the appli a t s e pulsio a d the e t
a agai st hi did ot p e lude hi f o e jo i g
fa il life ith his ife a d hild e fo se e ea s, ut athe shifted the fa il s ou t of eside e to
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for almost four years. Hence, the applicant and his wife and
children were, respectively are, geographically separated for a period of a little over three years in total,
during which the applicant could ask for a permission to visit his wife and children in Switzerland for short
pe iods of ti e.
I præmis 54 udtalte EMD om proportionalitetsafvejningen:
The fo egoi g o side atio s a e suffi ie t to e a le the Cou t to o lude that the do esti autho ities
reviewed all facto
s e tio ed a o e i detail. Agai st the a kg ou d of the g a it of the appli a t s
offence, the ties both the applicant and his wife have to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as well
as the adaptable age of their children, and considering the sovereignty of member States to control and
regulate the residence of aliens on their territory, the Court accepts that the domestic authorities balanced
the appli a t s ight to espe t fo his fa il life easo a l agai st the State s i te ests i public
safety and
in preventing disorder and crime. It cannot find that in the present case the respondent State attributed too
u h eight to its o i te ests he it de ided to e oke the appli a t s pe a e t eside e pe it a d
order his expulsion to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . The Court finds, therefore, that the
espo de t State has ot o e stepped the a gi of app e iatio affo ded to it i the p ese t ase.
EMD fandt således, at der ikke var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8 i den konkrete sag.
I sagen
Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark (2018)
blev klageren udvist på grund af en dom for indsmugling af et
kilo kokain til opholdslandet. Han blev idømt fem års fængsel og indrejseforbud for bestandigt. Klageren var
tidligere blevet idømt et års fængsel for vold, trusler og narkokriminalitet.
EMD udtalte i præmis 47 om grovheden af den begåede kriminalitet:
The Cou t eite ates i this espe t that it has held, o a p e ious o asio s, that it u de sta ds
- in view
of the de astati g effe ts d ugs ha e o people s li es
- why the authorities show great firmness to those who
actively contribute to the spread of this scourge (see, among others, Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, §
37, 11 July 2002; Sezen v. the Netherlands, no. 50252/99, § 43, 31 January 2006; A.W. Khan v. the United
Kingdom, no. 47486/06, § 40; 12 January 2010; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, cited above, § 89; Savasci v. Germany
(dec.), 45971/08, § 27, 19 March 2013; and Salem v. Denmark, cited above, § 66
.
Om hans personlige forhold udtalte EMD:
Side
36
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
. The appli a t e te ed De a k i
he he as
ea s old. B a fi al High Cou t judg e
t of 21
Ju e
he as o i ted of, i te alia, d ug offe es a d se te ed to o e ea s i p iso e t. Mo eo e ,
subsequent to the serious drug crime committed in 2008, the applicant was fined twice including, on 3 April
2009, for a violation of the Executive Order on Controlled Substances.
49. As to the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of
destination, the Court observes that during the criminal proceedings leading to the expulsion order, in August
2008 the Immigration Service (Udlændingeservice) stated that the applicant spoke Arabic and only a little
Danish. An interpreter had been used during his interview with the Immigration Service. The applicant had
e e had a jo i De a k. The appli a t s
parents and siblings remained in Jordan, where the applicant had
isited the a ouple of ea s efo e. Ho e e , i the e o atio p o eedi gs leadi g to the High Cou t s
decision of 27 January 2014, the applicant stated that he had broken off contact with his father and his eight
siblings in Jordan in 2005. He did not develop this statement further and the Court does not attach any
particular weight to this assertion.
. As to the appli a t s fa il situatio , su h as the le gth of the a iage, a d othe
factors expressing the
effe ti e ess of a ouple s fa il life, the Cou t otes that the appli a t s fi st ife, X, f o his a iage i
1997, was a stateless Palestinian woman from Lebanon who had obtained Danish nationality. She and the
applicant had three children together, born between 1997 and 2001. They had Danish nationality and their
legal status as ot affe ted
the appli a t s e pulsio o de . Afte the di o e i
, the appli a t
maintained contact with X and his children. During the revocation proceedings in 2013, before the High Court,
the applicant submitted that he and X planned to re-marry, but that it had not been decided whether she
would follow him to Jordan in case of expulsion. At the relevant time, however, the applicant was serving his
prison sentence and facing the implementation of the expulsion order. Thus, he could not have had a justified
expectation that he would be able to exercise his right to a family life in Denmark with X. Moreover, there is
no indication that they did remarry either before the applicant was deported on 14 April 2014 or thereafter.
Accordingly, the criterion relating to the seriousness of the difficulties which spouse X is likely to encounter in
the country to which the applicant is to be expelled does not apply.
. The appli a t s se o d ife, Y, f o his a iage u de Isla i la i
, as a I a i o a of Ku dish
origin. They married before the offences at issue were committed. Thus, the criterion of whether the spouse
knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship does not come into play
in the present case. In respect of their marriage it is noteworthy, though, that they divorced in May 2013,
efo e the Dist i t Cou t s de isio of Ju e
to efuse to
revoke the expulsion order. Accordingly, the
criterion relating to the seriousness of the difficulties which spouse Y is likely to encounter in the country to
which the applicant is to be expelled does not apply. Y and the applicant had three children together, born
between 2003 and 2009. The children had Danish nationality and their legal status was not affected by the
appli a t s e pulsio o de .
. Whe i
the appli a t as o i ted of a se ious d ug i e, se te ed to fi e ea s i p iso e t,
and his expulsion ordered, it was a known fact that he had six children. In their judgments of 11 March 2009
and 25 November 2009, respectively, the District Court and the High Court did not expressly state whether
the fou d that the appli a t s the ife,
Y, and their three children could follow him to Jordan or whether,
in any event, a separation of the applicant from his then wife and children could not outweigh the other
Side
37
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0039.png
counterbalancing factors, notably that the applicant had committed a serious drugs crime (see paragraphs
14 and 15 above).
[…]
57. In the present case, when the revocation proceedings were pending before the District Court in 2013, the
appli a t s hild e e e app o i atel
, , , , a d ea s old. The ould all e ai i De
ark,
so o uestio a ose as to
the seriousness of the difficulties which any children of the applicant are likely to
encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled . The issue was rather which difficulties they
would encounter in Denmark due to the separation from their father. The three eldest children would live with
their mother, X, as they had done since their parents divorced in 2001. The eldest son was living part-time in
an institution. The three youngest children would live with their mother, Y, as they had done since the
applicant was detained in April 2008.
. Both the Dist i t Cou t a d the High Cou t fou d u su sta tiated the appli a t s allegatio that the
hild e s health had dete io ated si e the e pulsio o de as issued i
. The appli a t s eldest so s
edi al o ditio as also k o i
.
Vedrørende proportionalitetsafvejningen fandt EMD i præmis 63:
I the light of the a o e, the Cou t e og ises that the Dist i t Cou t a d the High Cou t a efull
balanced
the o peti g i te ests a d e pli itl took i to a ou t the ite ia set out i the Cou t s ase-law,
including
the appli a t s fa il situatio . Mo eo e , ha i g ega d to the g a it of the d ugs i e o
itted the
applicant, the Court finds that the interference was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons, and was
p opo tio ate i that a fai ala e as st u k et ee the appli a t s ight to espe t fo his fa il life, o
the one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other hand (see, among many others, Salem v.
Denmark, cited above, § 82; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; Alam v. Denmark
(dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017; and Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September
.
3.3.3.1.2. Mindre alvorlig kriminalitet
I sagen
Maslov v. Austria (2008)
var klageren blevet udvist på grund af kriminalitet i form af mere end 40
kvalificerede indbrud, nogle i forbindelse med banderelationer, brugstyveri af køretøj og et enkelt tilfælde af
vold. Klageren var mindreårig, da han begik disse forhold, og da afgørelsen om udvisning blev endelig.
Medlemsstaten havde begrundet udvisningen med hensynet til forebyggelse af uro og forbrydelse.
I proportionalitetsafvejningen lagde EMD vægt på klagerens personlige forhold og den begåede kriminalitet.
I præmis 86 udtalte EMD:
The appli a t a e to Aust ia i
, at the age
of six, and spent the rest of his childhood and youth there.
He was lawfully resident in Austria with his parents and siblings and was granted a permanent-settlement
pe it i Ma h
.
I præmis 96 udtalte EMD videre:
Side
38
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
The Cou t o se es that the applicant
spent the formative years of his childhood and youth in Austria. He
speaks German and received his entire schooling in Austria where all his close family members live. He
the efo e has his p i ipal so ial, ultu al a d fa il ties i Aust ia.
Om klagerens tilknytning til sit hjemland udtalte EMD i præmis 97:
As to the appli a t s ties ith his ou t of o igi , the Cou t otes that he has o i i gl e plai ed that
he did not speak Bulgarian at the time of his expulsion as his family belonged to the Turkish minority in
Bulgaria. It was not disputed that he was unable to read or write Cyrillic as he had never gone to school in
Bulga ia. It has ot ee sho , o e e alleged, that he had a othe lose ties ith his ou t of o igi .
Om den begåede kriminalitet udtalte EMD i præmis 81:
I the Cou t s ie , the de isi e featu e of the p ese t ase is the ou g age at hi h the appli a t
committed the offences and, with one exception, their non-violent nature. This also clearly distinguishes the
present case from Boultif and Üner (both cited above) in which violent offences, in the first case robbery and
in the second case manslaughter and assault committed by an adult, were the basis for imposing exclusion
o de s. Looki g at the appli a t s o duct
underlying the convictions, the Court notes that the majority of the
offences concerned breaking into vending machines, cars, shops or restaurants and stealing cash and goods.
The one violent offence consisted in pushing, kicking and bruising another juvenile. Without underestimating
the seriousness of and the damage caused by such acts, the Court considers that they can still be regarded as
a ts of ju e ile deli ue .
Om selve proportionalitetsvurderingen i sager, hvor der var tale om ikke alvorlig kriminalitet, udtalte EMD i
præmisserne 84-85:
. I su , the Cou t sees little oo fo justif i g a e pulsio of a settled ig a t o a ou t of ostl
non-violent offences committed when a minor (see Moustaquim, cited above, § 44, concerning an applicant
who had been convicted of offences committed as a juvenile, namely numerous counts of aggravated theft,
one count each of handling stolen goods and destruction of a vehicle, two counts of assault and one count of
threatening behaviour, and Jakupovic v. Austria, no. 36757/97, § 27, 6 February 2003, in which the exclusion
order was based on two convictions for burglary committed when a minor and where, in addition, the
applicant was still a minor when he was expelled).
85.
Conversely, the Court has made it clear that very serious violent offences can justify expulsion even if they
were committed by a minor (see Bouchelkia, cited above, § 51, where the Court found no violation of Article 8
as ega ds a depo tatio o de ade o the asis of the appli a t s
conviction of aggravated rape committed
at the age of 17; in the decisions Hizir Kilic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 20277/05, and Ferhat Kilic v. Denmark (dec.),
o.
/ , oth of
Ja ua
, the Cou t de la ed i ad issi le the appli a ts o plai ts about
exclusion orders imposed following their convictions for attempted robbery, aggravated assault and
a slaughte o
itted at the age of a d
espe ti el .
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8, og konkluderede i præmis 100:
Ha i g ega d to the fo egoi g o side atio s, i pa ti ula the –
with one exception
–
non-violent nature of
the offe es o
itted he a i o a d the State s dut to fa ilitate his ei teg atio i to so iet , the
Side
39
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0041.png
le gth of the appli a t
s lawful residence in Austria, his family, social and linguistic ties with Austria and the
lack of proven ties with his country of origin, the Court finds that the imposition of an exclusion order, even of
a limited duration, was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, the prevention of disorder or crime .
It was therefore not necessary in a democratic society
.
Sagen
Omojudi v. the United Kingdom (2009)
omhandlede en klager, som indrejste i opholdslandet på et
studie-visum i en alder af 22 år. Året efter indrejste hans ægtefælle, og parret fik sammen tre børn, som alle
blev britiske statsborgere. Fire år efter klagerens indrejse fik han afslag på forlængelse af sit opholdsgrundlag,
idet han året forinden var blevet taget med et rejsedokument fra opholdslandet, som han havde opnået ved
svig. I forbindelse med nægtelsen af forlængelsen af klagerens opholdsgrundlag blev der udstedt en
deportationsordre. Klageren appellerede denne, men appellen blev afvist, og der blev udstedt en ny
deportationsordre. Mens appelsagen om udvisning blev behandlet, blev klageren dømt for henholdsvis tyveri
og sammensværgelse om at begå bedrag. Han blev idømt fire års fængsel. Samtidigt blev der afsagt dom for
andre forhold, hvorved klageren blev idømt fængsel i fem gange 12 måneder, som skulle afsones sideløbende
med dommen for tyveri og sammensværgelse.
Efter 13 års ophold søgte klageren om asyl, hvilket blev afslået efter yderligere tre års ophold. To år senere
søgte både klageren og hans ægtefælle om regularisering af deres ophold, og begge blev efter yderligere fem
år meddelt tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse. Klageren havde på dette tidspunkt haft 23 års ophold og var
45 år gammel.
Året efter at klageren blev meddelt tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse, blev han idømt 15 måneders fængsel
for seksuelle overgreb. Der blev i forbindelse med straffesagen ikke nedlagt påstand om, at klageren skulle
udvises, men året efter blev der udstedt en udvisningsafgørelse, idet opholdslandet ville forebygge uro og
forbrydelse. Efter en appelsag blev klageren udsendt til sit hjemland efter 26 års ophold. Hans børn var på
dette tidspunkt 20 år, 17 år og 16 år gamle.
Om de kriminelle forhold udtalte EMD i præmis 42, at:
The Court
observes that the applicant's most serious offences were committed in 1989 and 2005. During the
sixteen years between these offences, the applicant largely stayed out of trouble (with the exception of a
number of driving offences, none of which resulted in a prison sentence). The present case can therefore be
distinguished from that of the previously cited case Joseph Grant v. the United Kingdom in a number of
respects. First, the applicant in Grant was a habitual offender and there was no prolonged period during which
he was out of prison and did not offend. This is clearly not the case for the present applicant. Secondly, Mr
Grant committed all of his offences after he had been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United
Kingdom. Moreover, deportation was considered at a relatively early stage and while the Secretary of State
for the Home Department decided not to deport Mr Grant, it warned him that if in future he came to the
adverse attention of the authorities, deportation would again be considered. In the present case the applicant
was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain following his conviction for relatively serious crimes involving
deception and dishonesty. The Court attaches considerable weight to the fact that the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, who was fully aware of his offending history, granted the applicant Indefinite Leave
to Remain in the United Kingdom in 2005. Thirdly, the vast majority of the offences committed by Mr Grant
were related to his drug use. There was therefore a history and pattern of offending that was unlikely to end
until the underlying problem was addressed. In the present case, however, the applicant's offences were of a
Side
40
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
completely different nature and there was no indication that they were the result of any underlying problem .
In
pa ti ula , the e is o e ide e of a patte of se ual offe di g.
I præmisserne 44-48 udtalte EMD:
. The Cou t eite ates that se ual assault is u dou tedl a se ious offe e, pa ti ula l
he e it also
involves a breach of a position of trust. The Court observes, however, that the maximum available sentence
for sexual assault was ten years' imprisonment. It is therefore clear that even taking into account the
aggravating factor of a breach of a position of trust, the applicant's offence was not at the most serious end
of the spectrum of sexual offences.
45. The Court is mindful of the fact that the applicant has lived in the United Kingdom since 1982 and his wife
has lived there since 1983. Although they both spent the formative years of their lives in Nigeria, their ties
there have significantly weakened and they now have much stronger ties to the United Kingdom. While their
residence in the United Kingdom was not always lawful, over the years they made numerous attempts to
regularise their position and they were eventually granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2005. Their family
life began in the United Kingdom before the applicant committed his first criminal offence and at a time when
the applicant and his wife had leave to remain. Their children were born in the United Kingdom and are British
citizens. Moreover, all three children have always lived in the family home and the family continued to live
together as one unit until the applicant's deportation to Nigeria. The applicant's oldest son now has a
daughter of his own and prior to his deportation the applicant and his wife were helping him to raise her while
he pursued his studies.
46. The Court attaches considerable weight to the solidity of the applicant's family ties in the United Kingdom
and the difficulties that his family would face were they to return to Nigeria. The Court accepts that the
applicant's wife was also an adult when she left Nigeria and it is therefore likely that she would be able to re-
adjust to life there if she were to return to live with the applicant. She has, however, lived in the United
Kingdom for twenty-six years and her ties to the United Kingdom are strong. Her two youngest children were
born in the United Kingdom and have lived there their whole lives. They are not of an adaptable age and
would likely encounter significant difficulties if they were to relocate to Nigeria. It would be virtually
impossible for the oldest child to relocate to Nigeria as he has a young daughter who was born in the United
Kingdom. Consequently, the applicant's wife has chosen to remain in the United Kingdom with her children
and granddaughter. The applicant's family can, of course, continue to contact him by letter or telephone, and
they may also visit him in Nigeria from time to time, but the disruption to their family life should not be
underestimated. Although the Immigration Rules do not set a specific period after which revocation would be
appropriate, it would appear that the latest the applicant would be able to apply to have the deportation
order revoked would be ten years after his deportation.
47. Finally, the Court turns to the conduct of the applicant following the commission of the offence on 1
November 2005. The applicant committed a driving offence during this period, having failed to provide a
specimen for analysis. As a consequence, he was banned from driving for three years. The remainder of his
conduct is difficult to assess as he spent most of the period from the conviction to his deportation in detention.
His criminal sentence came to an end on 1 June 2007, after which he remained in immigration detention until
he was granted bail on 25 June 2007. He was detained again on 14 September 2007 and remained in detention
until he was deported on 27 April 2008.
Side
41
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0043.png
48. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, in particular the strength of the applicant's family
ties to the United Kingdom, his length of residence, and the difficulty that his youngest children would face if
they were to relocate to Nigeria, the Court finds that the applicant's deportation was not proportionate to
the legiti ate ai pu sued.
3.3.3.1.3. Opholdstilladelse opnået på baggrund af svig
I sagen
Antwi and others v. Norway (2012)
opnåede klageren sin opholdstilladelse på baggrund af svig.
Klageren var indrejst på et falsk pas med en falsk identitet, idet han udgav sig for at være statsborger i
Portugal. Klageren opnåede derved ret til ophold efter en aftale med EU-landene. Klageren søgte om
statsborgerskab, men fik afslag, idet han ikke opfyldte kravet om længde af ophold i opholdslandet. Klageren
fik sammen med sin kæreste et barn, og de blev efterfølgende gift i klagerens reelle hjemland, Ghana, hvor
også hans ægtefælle var statsborger.
Syv år efter indrejsen blev klageren anholdt under en rejse, hvorved opholdsstaten fik kendskab til hans reelle
identitet. Året efter blev klageren udvist af opholdslandet. Klagerens barn var på daværende tidspunkt fem
år.
Om proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 90:
I appl i g the a o e p i iples to the p ese t ase, the Cou t otes i the fi st pla e that the i pug ed
expulsion and five-year prohibition on re-entry had been imposed on the first applicant in view of the gravity
of his violations of the Immigration Act. The Court sees no reason to question the assessment of the national
immigration authorities and courts as to the aggravated chara
te of the fi st appli a t s ad i ist ati e
offences under the Act. Moreover, as already held on previous occasions, the possibility for the authorities to
react with expulsion would constitute an important means of general deterrence against gross or repeated
violations of the Immigration Act (see Nunez, cited above, § 71, and Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway,
no. 265/07, § 67, 31 July 2008; see also Kaya v. the Netherlands (dec.) no 44947/98, 6 November 2001). A
scheme of implementation of national immigration law which, as here, is based on administrative sanctions
in the form of expulsion does not as such raise an issue of failure to comply with Article 8 of the Convention
(see Nunez and Darren Omoregie and Others, cited above, ibidem). In the Court
s ie , the pu li i te est i
fa ou of o de i g the fi st appli a t s e pulsio eighed hea il i the ala e he assessi g the issue of
p opo tio alit u de A ti le of the Co e tio see Nu ez, ited a o e, §
.
I præmis 91 lagde EMD endvidere vægt på:
Mo eo e , he the fi st appli a t i itiall settled i No a i the autu
of
, he had o othe li ks
to the country than the second applicant who had invited him and with whom he started cohabiting soon
after his arrival. Whilst aware that his application for an EEA residence permit in 1999 had been granted on
the basis of misleading information that he had provided about his identity and country of origin, he had a
child with the second applicant in September 2001 and they got married in February 2005. At no stage from
when he entered Norway in the autumn of 1999 until being put on notice on 12 October 2005 could he
easo a l ha e e te tai ed a e pe tatio of ei g a le to e ai i the ou t .
Om klagerens tilknytning til henholdsvis hjemlandet og opholdslandet udtalte EMD i præmis 92:
Side
42
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0044.png
Fu the o e, the fi st appli a t had g o up i Gha a, he e his fa il li ed, a d had a i ed i No a
at an adult age. His links to Norway could not be said to outweigh those of his home country and had in any
event been formed through unlawful residence and without any legitimate expectation of being able to
e ai i the ou t .
EMD udtalte i præmis 105 om den indklagede stats afvejning af de modsat rettede hensyn:
I light of the a o e, the Court
does not find that the national authorities of the respondent State acted
arbitrarily or otherwise transgressed the margin of appreciation which should be accorded to it in this area
when seeking to strike a fair balance between its public interest in ensuring effective immigration control, on
the o e ha d, a d the appli a ts eed that the fi st appli a t e a le to e ai i No a , o the othe
ha d.
3.3.3.1.4. Ulovligt ophold
Sagen
Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (2014)
vedrørte en klager, der på intet tidspunkt under sit ophold i
Nederlandene siden 1997
–
bortset fra en kortvarig visumperiode i begyndelsen af sit ophold
–
havde haft
opholdstilladelse i landet. Storkammeret udtalte i præmis 105:
As the fa tual a d legal situatio of a settled ig a t a d that of a alie seeki g ad issio to a host ou t
– al eit i the appli a t s ase afte u e ous appli atio s fo a eside e pe it a d a
ea s of a tual
residence
–
are not the same, the
ite ia de eloped i the Cou t s ase-law
for assessing whether a
withdrawal of a residence permit of a settled migrant is compatible with Article 8 cannot be transposed
automatically to the situation of the applicant. Rather, the question to be examined in the present case is
whether, having regard to the circumstances as a whole, the Netherlands authorities were under a duty
pursuant to Article 8 to grant her a residence permit, thus enabling her to exercise family life on their territory.
The instant case thus concerns not only family life but also immigration. For this reason, the case at hand is
to be seen as one involving an allegation of failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with a
positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention (see Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 63,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI). As regards this issue, the Court will have regard to the following
principles as stated most recently in the case of Butt v. Norway (no. 47017/09, § 78 with further references, 4
December 2012).
I forlængelse heraf udtalte EMD om de generelle principper i præmisserne 106-109:
. While the esse tial o je t of A ti le is to p ote t the i di idual agai st a it a a tio
the pu li
authorities, there
a i additio e positi e o ligatio s i he e t i effe ti e espe t fo fa il life.
Ho e e , the ou da ies et ee the State s positi e a d egati e o ligatio s u de this p o isio do ot
lend themselves to precise definition. The applicable principles are, nonetheless, similar. In both contexts
regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual
and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation.
107. Where immigration is concerned, Article 8 cannot be considered to impose on a State a general
o ligatio to espe t a a ied ouple s hoi e of ou t fo thei at i o ial eside e o to autho ise
family reunification on its territory. Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration,
the e te t of a State s o ligatio s to ad it to its te ito
elati es of pe so s esidi g the e ill a
Side
43
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest. Factors to be taken
into account in this context are the extent to which family life would effectively be ruptured, the extent of the
ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in
the country of origin of the alien concerned and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example,
a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion
(see Butt v. Norway, cited above, § 78).
108. Another important consideration is whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved
were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within
the host State would from the
outset e p e a ious. It is the Cou t s ell-established
case-law that, where this
is the case, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family
member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom,
judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 94, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98,
24 November 1998; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; M. v. the
United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25087/06, 24 June 2008; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands,
cited above, § 39; Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 57-58; and Butt v. Norway, cited above,
§ 78).
109. Where children are involved, their best interests must be taken into account (see Tuquabo-Tekle and
Others v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, § 44, 1 December 2005; mutatis mutandis, Popov v. France, nos.
39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 139-140, 19 January 2012; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, cited above, §
135; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 96, ECHR 2013). On this particular point, the Court reiterates that
there is a broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning
children, their best interests are of paramount importance (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, cited
above, § 135, and X v. Latvia, cited above, § 96). Whilst alone they cannot be decisive, such interests certainly
must be afforded significant weight. Accordingly, national decision-making bodies should, in principle, advert
to and assess evidence in respect of the practicality, feasibility and proportionality of any removal of a non-
national parent in order to give effective protection and sufficient weight to the best interests of the children
di e tl affe ted it.
Vedrørende afvejningen i den konkrete sag udtalte EMD bl.a. (præmisserne 115-120):
. The Cou t fi st a d fo e ost takes i to o side atio the fa t that all e e s of the appli a t s
family
ith the e eptio of he self a e Nethe la ds atio als a d that the appli a t s spouse a d thei th ee
children have a right to enjoy their family life with each other in the Netherlands. The Court further notes that
the applicant held Netherlands nationality at birth. She subsequently lost her nationality when Suriname
became independent. She then became a Surinamese national, not by her own choice but pursuant to Article
3 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Suriname concerning the
assignment of nationality (see paragraph 62 above). Consequently, her position cannot be simply considered
to be on a par with that of other potential immigrants who have never held Netherlands nationality.
116. The Court considers that a second important feature of the instant case is the fact that the applicant has
been in the Netherlands for more than sixteen years and that she has no criminal record. Although she failed
to comply with the obligation to leave the Netherlands, her presence was nevertheless tolerated for a
considerable period of time by the Netherlands authorities, while she repeatedly submitted residence requests
Side
44
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
and awaited the outcome of appeals. The tolerance of her presence for such a lengthy period of time, during
which for a large part it was open to the authorities to remove her, in effect enabled the applicant to establish
a d de elop st o g fa il , so ial a d ultu al ties i the Nethe la ds. The appli a t s add ess, he e she has
been living for the last fifteen years, has always been known to the Netherlands authorities.
117. Thirdly, the Court accepts, given the common background of the applicant and her husband and the
relatively young age of their children, that there would appear to be no insurmountable obstacles for them to
settle in Suriname. However, it is likely that the applicant and her family would experience a degree of
hardship if they were forced to do so. When assessing the compliance of State authorities with their
obligations under Article 8, it is necessary to take due account of the situation of all members of the family,
as this provision guarantees protection to the whole family.
. The Cou t fou thl o side s that the i pa t of the Nethe la ds autho ities de isio o the appli a t s
three children is another important feature of this case. The Court observes that the best interests of the
appli a t s hild e ust e take i to a ou t i this ala i g e e ise see a o e §
. O this pa ti ula
point, the Court reiterates that there is a broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the
idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests are of paramount importance (see Neulinger
and Shuruk v. Switzerland, cited above, § 135, and X v. Latvia, cited above, § 96). Whilst alone they cannot be
decisive, such interests certainly must be afforded significant weight. For that purpose, in cases concerning
family reunification, the Court pays particular attention to the circumstances of the minor children concerned,
especially their age, their situation in the country or countries concerned and the extent to which they are
dependent on their parents (see Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 44).
119. Noting that the applicant takes care of the children on a daily basis, it is obvious that their interests are
best served by not disrupting their present circumstances by a forced relocation of their mother from the
Netherlands to Suriname or by a rupturing of their relationship with her as a result of future separation. In
this connection, the Court obse
es that the appli a t s hus a d p o ides fo the fa il
o ki g full-time
in a job that includes shift work. He is, consequently, absent from the home on some evenings. The applicant
–
being the mother and homemaker
–
is the primary and constant carer of the children who are deeply rooted
in the Netherlands of which country
–
like their father
–
they are nationals. The materials in the case file do
ot dis lose a di e t li k et ee the appli a t s hild e a d Su i a e, a ou t
he e the ha e e er
been.
120. In examining whether there were insurmountable obstacles for the applicant and her family to settle in
Su i a e, the do esti autho ities had so e ega d fo the situatio of the appli a t s hild e see
paragraphs 23 (under 2.19 and 2.21), 28 and 34 (under 2.4.5) above). However, the Court considers that they
fell short of what is required in such cases and it reiterates that national decision-making bodies should, in
principle, advert to and assess evidence in respect of the practicality, feasibility and proportionality of any
such removal in order to give effective protection and sufficient weight to the best interests of the children
directly affected by it (see above § 109). The Court is not convinced that actual evidence on such matters was
considered and assessed by the domestic authorities. Accordingly, it must conclude that insufficient weight
as gi e to the est i te ests of the appli a t s hild e i the de isio of the do esti autho ities to efuse
the appli a t s e uest fo a eside e pe it.
Samlet udtaler EMD vedrørende afvejningen i den konkrete sag i præmisserne 121-122:
Side
45
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0047.png
. The e t al issue i this ase is hethe , ea i g i
i d the a gi of app e iatio affo ded to States
in immigration matters, a fair balance has been struck between the competing interests at stake, namely the
personal interests of the applicant, her husband and their children in maintaining their family life in the
Netherlands on the one hand and, on the other, the public order interests of the respondent Government in
controlling immigration. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is questionable whether general
immigration policy considerations of themselves can be regarded as sufficient justification for refusing the
applicant residence in the Netherlands.
122. The Court, whilst confirming the relevant principles set out above (see paragraphs 106-109), finds that,
on the basis of the above considerations (see paragraphs 115-120) and viewing the relevant factors
cumulatively, the
i u sta es of the appli a t s ase ust e ega ded as e eptio al. A o di gl , the
Court concludes that a fair balance has not been struck between the competing interests involved. There has
thus been a failure by the Netherlands authorities to secu
e the appli a t s ight to espe t fo he fa il life
as p ote ted A ti le of the Co e tio .
Perso er, so e te har eller har haft lo ligt ophold i opholdsla det, ka ære at etragte so
igra ts og er eha dlet ær ere i afs itte e .3.3.1.1 –
3.3.3.1.3 og 3.3.3.1.5.
I sagen
Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (2007)
udtalte EMD i præmis 48:
A othe i po ta t o side atio
ill also e hethe fa il life as eated at a ti e he the pe so s
involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family
life within the host State would be precarious from the outset. The Court has previously held that where this
is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national
fa il e e ill o stitute a iolatio of A ti le .
I denne sag havde klageren på intet tidspunkt haft lovligt opholdsgrundlag, men havde stiftet familie i
opholdslandet ved at gifte sig og få et barn med en statsborger fra opholdslandet.
EMD udtalte i præmis 53:
The fo egoi g o side atio s a e suffi ie t to e a
le the Court to conclude that it cannot be said that the
Netherlands authorities have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant's interests on the one hand
and its own interest in controlling immigration and public expenditure and in the prevention of disorder or
crime on the other. Consequently, there has been no violation of the applicant's right to respect for her rights
gua a teed A ti le of the Co e tio .
I sagen
Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands (2006)
havde klageren på intet tidspunkt søgt
om opholdstilladelse, men havde indledt et familieliv. Klageren havde dog, såfremt hun havde søgt om det,
haft mulighed for at opnå en opholdstilladelse. Om den berettigede forventning udtalte EMD i præmis 43:
Whilst it does ot appea that the fi st appli a t has ee o i ted of a
i i al
offences (see Berrehab,
cited above, § 29, and
Cılız . the Nethe la ds, o.
/
, § 69, ECHR 2000-VIII), she did not attempt to
regularise her stay in the Netherlands until more than three years after first arriving in that country (see
paragraphs 9 and 13 above) and her stay there has been illegal throughout. The Court reiterates that persons
who, without complying with the regulations in force, confront the authorities of a Contracting State with
Settled
Side
46
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0048.png
their presence in the country as a fait accompli do not, in general, have any entitlement to expect that a right
of residence will be conferred upon them (see Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99,
13 May 2003). Nevertheless, the Court finds relevant that in the present case the Government indicated that
lawful residence in the Netherlands would have been possible on the basis of the fact that the first applicant
and Mr Hoogkamer had a lasting relationship between June 1994 and January 1997 (see paragraph 34
above). Although there is no doubt that a serious reproach may be made of the first applicant's cavalier
attitude to Dutch immigration rules, this case should be distinguished from others in which the Court
considered that the persons concerned could not at any time have reasonably expected to be able to continue
family life in the host country (see, for example, Solomon,
ited a o e .
I den konkrete sag, hvor det også skulle indgå i vurderingen, at klageren havde fået et barn, fandt EMD I
præmis 44:
I ie of the fa
-reaching consequences which an expulsion would have on the responsibilities which the
first applicant has as a mother, as well as on her family life with her young daughter, and taking into account
that it is clearly in Rachael's best interests for the first applicant to stay in the Netherlands, the Court considers
that in the particular circumstances of the case the economic well-being of the country does not outweigh the
applicants' rights under Article 8, despite the fact that the first applicant was residing illegally in the
Netherlands at the time of Rachael's birth. Indeed, by attaching such paramount importance to this latter
ele e t, the autho ities a e o side ed to ha e i dulged i e essi e fo alis .
3.3.3.1.5. Inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald, hvor ingen kriminalitet
Sagen
Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (2014)
vedrørte som anført ovenfor under afsnit 3.3.3.1.4 en klager, der
på intet tidspunkt under sit ophold i Nederlandene siden 1997
–
bortset fra en kortvarig visumperiode i
begyndelsen af sit ophold
–
havde haft lovligt ophold i landet. Storkammeret fandt imidlertid anledning til i
dommen også at udtale sig om retsstillingen for settled migrants:
. The i sta t ase a e disti guished f o ases o e i g settled ig a ts as this otio has ee
used i the Cou t s ase-law,
namely, persons who have already been granted formally a right of residence in
a host country. A subsequent withdrawal of that right, for instance because the person concerned has been
convicted of a criminal offence, will constitute an interference with his or her right to respect for private
and/or family life within the meaning of Article 8. In such cases, the Court will examine whether the
interference is justified under the second paragraph of Article 8. In this connection, it will have regard to the
various criteria which it has identified in its case-law in order to determine whether a fair balance has been
struck between the grounds underlying the
autho ities de isio to ithd a the ight of eside e a d the
Article 8 rights of the individual concerned (see, for instance, Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-
IX; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR
2008; Savasci v. Germany (dec.), no. 45971/08, 19 March 2013; and Udeh v. Switzerland, no. 12020/09, 16
Ap il
.
I sagerne
Slivenko v. Latvia (2003)
og
Sisojeva and others v. Latvia (2007)
har EMD taget stilling til, hvorledes
proportionalitetsafvejningen skal foretages i tilfælde, hvor klagerens opholdstilladelse inddrages eller nægtes
forlænget, uden at klageren har begået kriminelle forhold.
Side
47
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0049.png
I sagen
Slivenko v. Latvia (2003)
var klagerne, som var af russisk oprindelse, blevet udsendt fra Letland under
henvisning til, at de var familiemedlemmer til en russisk militærperson og derfor forpligtede til at forlade
Letland i forbindelse med tilbagetrækningen af de russiske tropper fra Letland som følge af landets opnåelse
af uafhængighed fra USSR. Sagerne vedrørte klagernes privatliv, idet de havde levet hele eller hovedparten
af deres liv i Letland. Medlemsstaten havde som det legitime hensyn henvist til den nationale sikkerhed.
I præmis 96 udtalte EMD om den ene klagers personlige forhold, at:
As ega ds the fa ts of the p ese t ase, the fi st appli a t a i ed i Lat ia i
59, when she was only one
month old. Until 1999, by which time she was 40 years of age, she continued to live in Latvia. She attended
school there, found employment and married. Her daughter, the second applicant, was born in Latvia in 1981
and lived there until the age of 18, when she was compelled to leave the country together with her mother,
having just completed her secondary education (see paragraphs 16 and 46 above). It is undisputed that the
applicants left Latvia against their own will, as a result of the unsuccessful outcome of the proceedings
concerning the legality of their stay in Latvia. They were thus removed from the country where they had
developed, uninterruptedly since birth, the network of personal, social and economic relations that make up
the private life of every human being. Furthermore, as a result of the removal, the applicants lost the flat in
which they had lived in Riga (see paragraphs 32 and 46 above). In these circumstances, the Court cannot but
find that the applicants' removal from Latvia constituted an interference with their private life and their
home
ithi the ea i g of A ti le § of the Co e tio .
EMD udtalte i præmis 112:
I sho t, the easu es of the appli a ts' e o al a e said to ha e ee i posed i
pursuance of the
p ote tio of atio al se u it , a legiti ate ai
ithi the ea i g of A ti le § of the Co e tio .
Medlemsstaten anførte i præmis 123 om klagernes manglende tilknytning til opholdslandet:
The espo de t Go e
e t a gued that the applicants
had not been sufficiently integrated into Latvian
society (see paragraph 88 above). In this connection the Court observes that the applicants have spent
virtually all their lives in Latvia (see paragraph 96 above). It is true that the applicants are not of Latvian origin,
and that they arrived and lived in Latvia
–
then part of the USSR
–
in connection with the service of members
of their family (the first applicant's father and her husband) in the Soviet armed forces. However, the
applicants also developed personal, social and economic ties in Latvia unrelated to their status as relatives of
Soviet (and later Russian) military officers. This is shown by the fact that the applicants did not live in army
barracks or any other restricted area, but in a block of flats in which there were also civilians. Nor did they
study or work in a military institution. The first applicant was able to find employment in Latvian companies
afte Lat ia egai ed its i depe de e i
.
EMD udtalte herom i præmis 124:
As ega ds the espo de t Go e
e t's a gu e t a out the le el of the appli a ts' p ofi ie
i Lat ia ,
the Court observes that, in so far as this is a relevant consideration, it has not been shown that the degree of
the applicants' fluency in the language
–
although the precise level is in dispute
–
was insufficient for them to
lead a normal everyday life in Latvia. In particular, there is no evidence that the level of the applicants'
knowledge of Latvian was in any way different from that of other native Russian speakers living in Latvia,
Side
48
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0050.png
including those who were able to obtain the status of ex-USSR citizens in order to remain in Latvia on a
pe a e t asis.
EMD udtalte endvidere i præmis 125 om klagernes tilknytning til hjemlandet:
Although i
999 the applicants moved to Russia to join Nikolay Slivenko and eventually obtained Russian
citizenship, by that time they had apparently not developed personal, social or economic ties in Russia similar
to those they had established in Latvia. In short, the Court finds that at the relevant time the applicants were
suffi ie tl i teg ated i to Lat ia so iet .
Grundet ovenstående forhold fandt EMD i præmis 128:
Ha i g ega d to all the i u sta es, the Cou t o side s that the Lat ia autho ities o e stepped
the
margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting Parties in such a matter, and that they failed to strike a
fair balance between the legitimate aim of the protection of national security and the interest of the
protection of the applicants' rights under Article 8. Therefore, the applicants' removal from the territory of
Latvia cannot be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society
.
Sagen
Sisojeva and others v. Latvia (2005)
omhandlede en familie bestående af far, mor samt deres to børn.
Forældrene samt det ene barn klagede til EMD over, at opholdsstaten havde inddraget deres
opholdstilladelse under henvisning til, at de på baggrund af en konvention indgået mellem opholdsstaten og
den tidligere Sovjetunion ikke havde krav på opholdstilladelse. Opholdsstaten henviste i den forbindelse til,
at den ene klager, faren, havde været tilknyttet militæret under den tidligere Sovjetunion, hvorfor klagerne
ikke kunne få legaliseret deres ophold i opholdsstaten. Klagerne havde i denne sag ikke begået kriminelle
handlinger under deres ophold i opholdslandet, men havde overtrådt en regulativ forskrift, og var blevet
idømt en mindre bøde. EMD lagde dog vægt på, at denne forseelse ikke var at anse som en strafferetlig
overtrædelse jf. den nationale lovgivning. Der henvises til afsnit 3.3.2.2 om legitime formål for gennemgang
af sagens faktum.
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 102:
I the i sta t ase, the Cou t otes that the fi st t o appli a ts a i ed i Lat ia i
a d
respectively, that is, at the age of 20 in the case of Svetlana and 22 in the case of Arkady. Since then, they
have lived continuously in Latvia. Their daughter, the third applicant, was born in Latvia in 1978 and has
always lived there. Accordingly, it is not disputed that during their time in Latvia the applicants have
developed the personal, social and economic ties that make up the private life of every human being.
Therefore, the Court cannot but find that the measure imposed on the applicants constituted an interference
with their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see the judgment in Slivenko v.
Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 96, ECHR 2003-X).
I præmis 106 udtalte EMD, at det påberåbte hensyn fra statens side var hensynet til at forebygge uro:
With efe e e fi st of all to the la ful ess of the easu e fo the pu poses of A ti le § of the
Co e tio , the Cou t ag ees ith the Go e
e t's asse tio that the i te fe e e as i a o da e ith
the la
i this i sta e se tio
of the No
-Citizens Act and section 35 of the former Aliens Act). Equally,
Side
49
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0051.png
in view of the fact that the measure was designed to ensure compliance with immigration laws, the Court
accepts that it pursued a legitimate aim , namely to prevent disorder
.
Om tilknytningen til opholdslandet og dermed proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 107:
As to hethe the i pug ed easu e as
necessary in a democratic society , that is, proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued, the Court notes that the applicants have spent all, or almost all, of their lives in Latvia.
Although they are not of Latvian origin, the fact remains that they have developed personal, social and
economic ties strong enough for them to be regarded as sufficiently well integrated in Latvian society, even
if, as the Government maintain, there are gaps in their knowledge of Latvian (see the Slivenko judgment cited
above, § 124). Similarly, although the second and third applicants have Russian nationality and had an
officially registered residence in Russia, none of the three applicants appears to have developed personal ties
i that ou t o pa a le to those the ha e esta lished i Lat ia i id., §
.
Da klagerne ikke havde begået nogen overtrædelse af straffeloven, og idet der var tale om en klage over, at
klagerne ikke kunne få legaliseret deres ophold i opholdsstaten, udtalte EMD i præmis 108:
I these i u sta es the Cou t o side s that, i te s of the o ditio s i posed o the appli a ts i o de
to have their position regularised, only reasons of a particularly serious nature could justify refusal. The Court
has been unable to discern any such reasons in the instant case. While it recognises the right of each State to
take effective steps to ensure compliance with its immigration laws, it considers that a measure of the kind
imposed on the applicants could be considered to be proportionate only if the applicants had acted in a
particularly dangerous manner. In that connection the Court reiterates that most of the similar cases it has
examined under Article 8 of the Convention have related to situations in which the applicants had been
deported after being convicted of serious criminal offences. In the instant case, however, the applicants
received only a modest fine which was not classified as a criminal penalty under Latvian law (see paragraph
a o e.
Det bemærkes, at kammerets afgørelse i ovennævnte sag blev henvist til Storkammeret, som slettede sagen
af sagslisten for så vidt angår artikel 8-spørgsmålet, da klagerne på tidspunktet for Storkammerets behandling
havde mulighed for at legalisere deres ophold i Letland og dermed ikke var i risiko for at blive udsendt.
Storkammeret har således ikke i den nævnte sag forholdt sig til artikel 8-vurderingen, herunder kammerets
anvendelse eller vægtning af det legitime hensyn.
I sagen
Osman v. Denmark (2011)
havde klageren tidligere haft opholdstilladelse i medlemsstaten.
Opholdstilladelsen var imidlertid bortfaldet, efter at klageren som barn havde haft et længerevarende ophold
i familiens tidligere opholdsland. Klageren var efterfølgende genindrejst i medlemsstaten. Klageren havde
opholdt sig i Danmark fra hun var syv år, indtil hun som 15-årig af sine forældre blev sendt på
genopdragelsesrejse i sit tidligere opholdsland, Kenya, hvor hun også havde boet, fra hun var ca. fire år, til
hun var syv år.
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 60 om tilknytningen til Danmark:
The Cou t o se es that the appli a t spe t the fo ati e ea s of he hildhood a d outh i De a k,
namely from the age of seven to fifteen years old. She speaks Danish and received schooling in Denmark until
Side
50
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0052.png
August 2002. Her divorced parents and older siblings live in Denmark. The applicant therefore had social,
ultu al a d fa il ties i De a k.
Om tilknytningen til hjemlandet og det tidligere opholdsland, udtalte EMD i præmis 61:
The appli a t also had so ial, ultu al a d fa il ties i Ke a a d So alia. She as o i So alia a d
lived there from 1987 to 1991. She resided in Kenya from 1991 to 1995. The applicant spoke Somali. It was
unclear whether the applicant had family in Somalia but certain that she had family in Kenya. The applicant
returned to Kenya in 2003 and took care of her parental grandmother. Her application in August 2005 to re-
enter Denmark was refused but she re-entered the country illegally, appare
tl i Ju e
. The appli a t s
father was a recognised refugee from Somalia. He visited Kenya at least twice, namely in 2003 and 2005. The
se o d ti e he e a ied the e. The e as o i di atio that the appli a t s othe ould ot e te So alia
and Ke
a.
Ydermere lagde EMD i præmis 70 vægt på, at klageren ikke frivilligt var udrejst fra Danmark:
I the p ese t ase, the appli a t ai tai ed that she had ee o liged to lea e De a k to take a e of
her grandmother at the Hagadera refugee camp for more than two years; that her stay there was involuntary;
that she had o ea s to lea e the a p; a d that he fathe s de isio to se d he to Ke a had ot ee
i he est i te est.
EMD udtalte i præmis 76 om de nationale myndigheders proportionalitetsvurdering:
Ha i g ega d to all the a o e i u sta es, it a ot e said that the appli a t s i te ests ha e suffi ie tl
ee take i to a ou t i the autho ities efusal to ei state he eside e pe it i De a k o that a fai
balance was struck
et ee the appli a ts i te ests o the o e ha d a d the State s i te est i o t olli g
i
ig atio o the othe .
I sagen
Berrehab. v. the Netherlands (1988)
opnåede klageren en opholdstilladelse på baggrund af ægteskab
med en hollandsk statsborger. Parret fik en datter. Da klageren efterfølgende blev skilt fra sin ægtefælle,
nægtede de nationale myndigheder at forlænge hans opholdstilladelse, da denne var betinget af et
bestående ægteskab. Klageren havde opholdt sig i hjemlandet de første 25 år af sit liv og havde derefter
opholdt sig år i opholdsla det. Klagere s datter ar på tidspu ktet for EMD s afgørelse i
år gammel.
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmisserne 28-29:
28. In determining whether an interference was necessary in a democratic society , the Court makes
allowance for the margin of appreciation that is left to the Contracting States (see in particular the W v. the
United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121-A, p. 27, § 60 (b) and (d), and the Olsson judgment
of 24 March 1988, Series A no.130, pp. 31-32, § 67).
In this connection, it accepts that the Convention does not in principle prohibit the Contracting States from
egulati g the e t a d le gth of sta of alie s. A o di g to the Cou t s esta lished ase-law
(see, inter alia,
the judgments previously cited), however, necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing
social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Side
51
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0053.png
29. Having to ascertain whether this latter condition was satisfied in the instant case, the Court observes,
firstly, that its function is not to pass
judg e t o the Nethe la ds i
ig atio a d eside e poli as su h.
It has only to examine the interferences complained of, and it must do this not solely from the point of view
of i
ig atio a d eside e, ut also ith ega d to the appli a ts
utual interest in continuing their
relations. As the Netherlands Court of Cassation also noted (see paragraph 16 above), the legitimate aim
pu sued has to e eighed agai st the se ious ess of the i te fe e e ith the appli a ts ight to espe t fo
their family life.
As to the aim pursued, it must be emphasised that the instant case did not concern an alien seeking admission
to the Netherlands for the first time but a person who had already lawfully lived there for several years, who
had a home and a job there, and against whom the Government did not claim to have any complaint.
Furthermore, Mr. Berrehab already had real family ties there - he had married a Dutch woman, and a child
had been born of the marriage.
As to the extent of the interference, it is to be noted that there had been very close ties between Mr. Berrehab
and his daughter for several years (see paragraphs 9 and 21 above) and that the refusal of an independent
residence permit and the ensuing expulsion threatened to break those ties. That effect of the interferences in
issue was the more serious as Rebecca needed to remain in contact with her father, seeing especially that she
was very young.
Having regard to these particular circumstances, the Court considers that a proper balance was not achieved
between the interests involved and that there was therefore a disproportion between the means employed
and the legitimate aim pursued. That being so, the Court cannot consider the disputed measures as being
necessary in a democratic society. It thus
o ludes that the e as a iolatio of A ti le a t. .
3.3.3.1.6. Familiesammenføring til personer, som har lovligt ophold
Familieliv, der måtte være etableret eller opretholdt på baggrund af lovligt ophold i et opholdsland, kan have
betydning for en afgørelse om inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse eller bortfald af en opholdstilladelse.
EMD har så vidt ses ikke afsagt domme, som direkte belyser betydning af et etableret familieliv i sager om
inddragelse mv., men EMD har i en række domme reflekteret betydningen af familieliv i opholdslandet i
forbindelse med behandling af ansøgninger om opholdstilladelse.
Sagen
Gül v. Switzerland (1996)
omhandlede en klager, som i sit hjemland boede sammen med sin ægtefælle
og deres to fælles børn. Klageren rejste efterfølgende til opholdslandet og søgte om politisk asyl. Fire år efter
klagerens indrejse indrejste hans ægtefælle i opholdslandet, hvor hun året efter fødte parrets tredje
fællesbarn. Parrets to andre fællesbørn opholdt sig stadig i hjemlandet. Det tredje fællesbarn blev grundet
moderens helbredsproblemer (epilepsi) anbragt udenfor hjemmet, hvor hun forblev. Ægtefællen blev
efterfølgende undersøgt af en specialist, som erklærede, at hun ikke ville kunne modtage den påkrævede
behandling i sit hjemland, og at en tilbagevenden til hjemlandet kunne være fatal for hendes liv.
Klageren blev meddelt afslag på asyl efter seks års ophold i opholdslandet, men klageren, hans ægtefælle og
deres yngste datter blev samme år meddelt humanitær opholdstilladelse. Året efter søgte klageren dernæst
om familiesammenføring for de to fællesbørn, som stadig opholdt sig i hjemlandet.
Om proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 38:
Side
52
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
The Cou t eite ates that the esse tial o je t of A ti le a t. is to p ote t the i di idual agai st a it a
action by the public authorities. There may in addition be positive obligations inherent in effective respect
fo fa il life. Ho e e , the ou da ies et ee the State s positi e a d egati e o ligatio s u de this
provision (art. 8) do not lend themselves to precise definition. The applicable principles are, nonetheless,
similar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing
interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain
margin of appreciation (see, most recently, the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290,
p. 19, para. 49, and the Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-
C, p. 56, para. 31). The present case concerns not only family life but also immigration, and the extent of a
State s o ligatio to ad it to its te ito elati es of settled i
ig a ts ill a a o di g to the pa ti ula
circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest. As a matter of well-established international
law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its
territory (see, among other authorities, the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom
judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 33-34, para. 67). Moreover, where immigration is concerned,
Article 8 (art. 8) cannot be considered to impose on a State a general obligation to respect the choice by
married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to authorise family reunion in its territory.
I o de to esta lish the s ope of the State s o ligatio s, the fa ts of the ase ust e o side ed see, utatis
mutandis, the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment previously cited, p. 34, para. 68, and the Cruz
Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 32, para.
.
EMD udtalte i præmis 39, at selve proportionalitetsvurderingen skulle foretages ud fra, om dette var
klagerens eneste mulighed for at kunne udvikle et familieliv med klagerens børn:
I this ase, the efo e, the Cou t s task is to dete i e to hat e te t it is t ue that E si s
S itze la d ould e the o l a fo M Gül to de elop fa il life ith his so .
o e to
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen lagde EMD i præmis 41 vægt på klagerens mulighed for at udleve
familielivet i hjemlandet:
B lea i g Tu ke i
, M Gül aused the sepa atio f o his so , a d he as u a le to p o e to the
Swiss authorities - who refused to grant him political refugee status - that he personally had been a victim of
pe se utio i his ho e ou t . I a e e t, hate e the appli a t s i itial easo s fo appl i g fo politi al
asylum, the visits he has made to his son in recent years tend to show that they are no longer valid. His
counsel, moreover, expressly confirmed this at the hearing. In addition, according to the Government, by
virtue of a social security convention concluded on 1 May 1969 between Switzerland and Turkey, the applicant
could continue to receive his ordinary invalidity pension and half of the supplementary benefit he receives at
present in respect of his wife, his son Ersin and his daughter Nursal if he returned to his home country (see
pa ag aph
a o e . M s Gül s etu to Tu ke is o e p o le ati ,
since it was essentially her state of
health that led the Swiss authorities to issue a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. However, although
her state of health seemed particularly alarming in 1987, when her accident occurred, it has not been proved
that she could not later have received appropriate medical treatment in specialist hospitals in Turkey. She
as, o eo e , a le to isit Tu ke ith he hus a d i Jul a d August
see pa ag aph a o e .
EMD udtalte endvidere i præmis 42, om hvorvidt det ville være praktisk muligt for klageren på ny at tage
ophold i hjemlandet, henset til længden af klagerens ophold i opholdslandet:
Side
53
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0055.png
I ie of the le gth of ti e M a d M s Gül ha e li ed i S itze la d, it ould ad ittedl ot e eas fo
them to return to Turkey, but there are, strictly speaking, no obstacles preventing them from developing
family life in Turkey. That possibility is all the more real because Ersin has always lived there and has therefore
grown up in the cultural and linguistic environment of his country. On that point the situation is not the same
as in the Berrehab case, where the daughter of a Moroccan applicant had been born in the Netherlands and
spent all her life there (see the Berrehab judgment previously cited, p. 8, para.
.
EMD fandt således i præmis 43, at et afslag på familiesammenføring til de to børn, der fortsat opholdt sig i
hjemlandet, ikke var en krænkelse af artikel 8.
I sagen
Ahmut v. the Netherlands (1996)
foretog EMD en proportionalitetsvurdering i forbindelse med en
ansøgning om familiesammenføring fra klagerens søn.
Klageren havde fået fem børn med sin tidligere ægtefælle, inden han forlod hjemlandet og opnåede
statsborgerskab i opholdslandet. Da klageren udrejste, efterlod han sine fem børn hos sin tidligere ægtefælle.
Hans tre ældste børn indrejste efterfølgende i opholdslandet, hvor en blev udvist, da han ikke havde et visum
til midlertidigt besøgsophold og efterfølgende havde fået afslag på opholdstilladelse, og de to andre blev
meddelt opholdstilladelse. Til sidst rejste også hans to resterende børn til opholdslandet, hvorefter klageren
på vegne af disse søgte om opholdstilladelse under henvisning til ham.
Medlemsstaten afslog disse ansøgninger under henvisning til, at familielivet var afbrudt, og fandt på den
baggrund at et afslag på opholdstilladelse ikke var en krænkelse af artikel 8. Det blev ligeledes anført, at
såfremt der havde foreligget et familieliv mellem klageren og hans to børn, var hensynet til det statens ønske
om at begrænse immigration, et forhold der var omfattet af undtagelsesbestemmelserne på grund af
økonomiske hensyn.
Om proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 63, at det generelle princip var:
The Cou t eite ates that the esse tial o je t of A ti le a t. is to p ote t the i di idual agai st a it a
action by the public authorities. There may in addition be positive obligations inherent in effective respect
fo fa il life. Ho e e , the ou da ies et ee the State s positi e a d egati e o ligatio s u de this
provision (art. 8) do not lend themselves to precise definition. The applicable principles are, nonetheless,
similar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing
interests of the individual and of the community as a whole ; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain
margin of appreciation (see, most recently, the above-mentioned Gül judgment, pp. 174-75, para.
.
I den konkrete sag lagde EMD i præmis 69 endvidere vægt på klagerens barns tilknytning til hjemlandet:
Afte Salah Ah ut e t to the Nethe la ds i
Souffia e as a ed fo
othe s, fi st Souffia e s
othe , a d afte the latte s death i
, his g a d othe see pa ag aphs a d
a o e . Apa t f o
the period between 26 March 1990 and 30 September 1991, which he spent in the Netherlands, and a number
of visits to his father (see paragraph 18 above), Souffiane has lived in Morocco all his life. It follows that
Souffiane has strong links with the linguistic and cultural environment of his country. In addition, he still has
family there, namely his elder brother Hamid, his sister Souad, two uncles and possibly his grandmother (see
pa ag aph a o e .
Side
54
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0056.png
EMD udtalte endvidere i præmis 70, at klageren stadig havde en tilknytning til sit hjemland:
The fa t of the appli a ts li i g apa t is the esult of Salah Ah ut s o s ious de isio to settle i the
Netherlands rather than remain in Morocco. In addition to having had Netherlands nationality since February
1990, Salah Ahmut has retained his original Moroccan nationality (see paragraph 7 above). Souffiane has
Moroccan nationality only (see paragraph 8 above). It therefore appears that Salah Ahmut is not prevented
from maintaining the degree of family life which he himself had opted for when moving to the Netherlands in
the first place, nor is there any obstacle to his returning to Morocco. Indeed, Salah Ahmut and Souffiane have
isited ea h othe o u e ous o asio s si e the latte s etu to that ou t .
Om familiens ønske om at genoptage familielivet udtalte EMD endvidere i præmis 71:
It
may well be that Salah Ahmut would prefer to maintain and intensify his family links with Souffiane in the
Netherlands. However, as noted in paragraph 67 above, Article 8 (art. 8) does not guarantee a right to choose
the most suitable place to develop fa
il life.
EMD fandt på den baggrund, at der ikke forelå en krænkelse af artikel 8.
3.3.3.2. Personlige forhold der skal inddrages i vurderingen
EMD har gennem sin praksis oplistet en række momenter, som skal vurderes, når der skal tages stilling til,
om et indgreb i retten til privat- og/eller familieliv i forbindelse med udsendelse af en udlænding udgør en
krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
Det e ærkes i de for i delse, at EMD s praksis edrøre de i dgre i rette til pri at-
og/eller familieliv i
forbindelse med udsendelse af udlændinge i vidt omfang vedrører sager om udvisning som følge af
kriminalitet begået i opholdslandet. Der er således i forbindelse med udarbejdelsen af nærværende notat
alene fundet et mindre antal artikel 8-afgørelser om udsendelse af udlændinge, som ikke (primært) vedrører
kriminalitet. Som gennemgået i afsnit 3.3.3.1.1 til 3.3.3.1.6 har baggrunden for medlemsstatens indgreb stor
betydning for proportionalitetsafvejningen.
Dette afsnit oplister en række af de momenter, som EMD gennem sin praksis (primært om kriminelle
udlændinge) har fremhævet som værende nødvendige at inddrage i proportionalitetsafvejningen.
I sagen
Boultif v. Switzerland (2001)
udtalte EMD i præmis 48:
The Cou t has o l a li ited u e of de ided ases he e the ai o sta le to e pulsio as that it ould
entail difficulties for the spouses to stay together and, in particular, for one of them and/or the children to
li e i the othe s ou t of o igi . It is the efo e alled upo to esta lish guidi g p i iples i o de to
examine whether the measure in question was necessary in a democratic society.
In assessing the relevant criteria in such a case, the Court will consider the nature and seriousness of the
offe e o
itted the appli a t; the du atio of the appli a t s sta i the ou t f o
hi h he is goi g
to be expelled; the time which has
elapsed si e the o
issio of the offe e a d the appli a t s o du t
du i g that pe iod; the atio alities of the a ious pe so s o e ed; the appli a t s fa il situatio , su h
as the length of the marriage; other factors revealing whether the couple lead a real and genuine family life;
whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship;
Side
55
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0057.png
and whether there are children in the marriage and, if so, their age. Not least, the Court will also consider the
se ious ess of the diffi ulties hi h the spouse ould e likel to e ou te i the appli a t s ou t of
origin, although the mere fact that a person might face certain difficulties in accompanying her or his spouse
cannot in itself preclude expulsion.
I sagen
Üner v. the Netherlands (2006),
præmis 58, anvendte EMD de oplistede kriterier, men præciserede,
at der i
Boultif-dommen
lå to implicitte parametre.
The Cou t ould ish to ake e pli it t o ite ia hi h a al ead
e i pli it i those ide tified i Boultif:
–
the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any
children of the applicant are likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled; and
–
the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.
As to the first point, the Court notes that this is already reflected in its existing case-law (see, for example,
Şe
v. the Netherlands, no. 31465/96, § 40, 21 December 2001, and Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands,
no. 60665/00, § 47, 1 December 2005) and is in line with the Committee of Ministers Recommendation
Rec(2002)4 on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification (see paragraph 38 above).
As to the second point, it is to be noted that, although the applicant in Boultif was already an adult when he
entered Switzerland, the Court has held the Boultif criteria to apply all the more so (à plus forte raison) to
cases concerning applicants who were born in the host country or who moved there at an early age (see
Mokrani v. France, no. 52206/99, § 31, 15 July 2003). Indeed, the rationale behind making the duration of a
pe so s sta i the host ou t o e of the ele e ts to e take i to a ou t lies i the assu ptio that the
longer a person has been residing in a particular country, the stronger his or her ties with that country and
the weaker the ties with the country of his or her nationality will be. Seen against that background, it is self-
evident that the Court will have regard to the special situation of aliens who have spent most, if not all, their
hildhood i the host ou t , e e ought up the e a d e ei ed thei edu atio the e.
De momenter, som jf.
Boultif-sagen
og
Üner-sagen
skal anvendes ved vurderingen af, om der vil ske en
krænkelse af privat- og/eller familielivet, er:
Typen og alvorligheden af den begåede kriminalitet
Tidspunktet for den begåede kriminalitet og den pågældendes efterfølgende opførsel
Om ægtefællen havde kendskab til pågældendes lovovertrædelse på tidspunktet for indgåelse af
familielivet
Længden af opholdet i opholdslandet
De berørte personers nationalitet
Pågældendes familiemæssige situation, herunder længden af ægteskabet eller andre faktorer, som
kan påvise et reelt familieliv
Om der er børn i ægteskabet, og hvis dette er tilfældet, deres alder
Karakteren af de udfordringer, som samleveren/ægtefællen angiveligt vil møde, såfremt der skal
tages ophold i klagerens hjemland
Der skal tages hensyn til barnets tarv, i særdeleshed karakteren af de udfordringer, som ethvert barn
af klageren angiveligt vil møde i det land, som klageren skal udrejse til
Side
56
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0058.png
Fastheden af de sociale, kulturelle og familiemæssige bånd til henholdsvis opholdslandet og
hjemlandet
I sagen
Maslov v. Austria (2008),
der ligeledes handlede om udvisning som følge af kriminalitet, citerede
Storkammeret i præmis 68 opregningen af kriterierne i
Üner
og tilføjede:
. The Cou t ould st ess that
while the criteria which emerge from its case-law and are spelled out in the
Boultif and Üner judgments are meant to facilitate the application of Article 8 in expulsion cases by domestic
courts, the weight to be attached to the respective criteria will inevitably vary according to the specific
circumstances of each case. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that where, as in the present case, the
i te fe e e ith the appli a t s ights u de A ti le pu sues, as a legiti ate ai , the
prevention of disorder
or crime (see paragraph 67 above), the above criteria ultimately are designed to help evaluate the extent to
which the applicant can be expected to cause disorder or to engage in criminal activities.
71. In a case like the present one, where the person to be expelled is a young adult who has not yet founded
a family of his own, the relevant criteria are
–
the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant;
– the le gth of the appli a t s sta i the ou t f o
hi h he o she is to e e pelled;
– the ti e elapsed si e the offe e as o
itted a d the appli a t s o du
t during that period; and
–
the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.
72. The Court would also clarify that the age of the person concerned can play a role when applying some of
the above criteria. For instance, when assessing the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by an
applicant, it has to be taken into account whether he or she committed them as a juvenile or as an adult (see,
for instance, Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 44, Series A no. 193, and Radovanovic v. Austria,
no. 42703/98, § 35, 22 April 2004).
73. In turn, when assessing the length of
the appli a t s sta i the ou t f o
hi h he o she is to e
expelled and the solidity of the social, cultural and family ties with the host country, it evidently makes a
difference whether the person concerned had already come to the country during his or her childhood or
youth, or was even born there, or whether he or she only came as an adult. This tendency is also reflected in
various Council of Europe instruments, in particular in Committee of Ministers Recommendations Rec(2000)15
and Rec(2002)4 (see paragraphs 34-35 above).
74. Although Article 8 provides no absolute protection against expulsion for any category of aliens (see Üner,
cited above, § 55), including those who were born in the host country or moved there in their early childhood,
the Court has already found that regard is to be had to the special situation of aliens who have spent most, if
not all, of their childhood in the host country, were brought up there and received their education there (see
Üner, § 58 in fine).
75. In short, the Court considers that for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his
or her childhood and youth in the host country very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion. This is
all the more so where the person concerned committed the offences underlying the expulsion measure as a
ju e ile.
Side
57
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0059.png
Ved vurderingen af klagerens tilknytning til opholdslandet og hjemlandet har EMD i sin praksis navnlig lagt
vægt på:
Længden af opholdet i opholdslandet
Alder ved ankomsten
Skolegang
Arbejde
Sproglige kundskaber
Kulturel tilknytning
Social/familiemæssig tilknytning
Længden af opholdet i hjemlandet før udrejsen/efterfølgende ophold eller besøg
Evt. skolegang/sproglige kundskaber/kulturel tilknytning til hjemlandet
Social/familiemæssig tilknytning til hjemlandet
For børns vedkommende: barnets tarv
De i
Boultif-
og
Üner-dommene
fastsatte momenter anvendes til stadighed, hvilket ses i dommen
Said Abdul
Salam Mubarak v. Denmark (2019),
hvor en dansk-marokkansk statsborger blev dømt for terrorisme.
Klageren fik efterfølgende frataget sit danske statsborgerskab og blev udvist fra Danmark.
EMD udtalte i præmis 74:
The ele a t ite ia to e applied, i dete i i g hethe a i te fe e e is e essa i a de o ati
society, were set out in, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR
2006-XII;
… The a e the follo i g:
- the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant;
-
the le gth of the appli a t s sta i the ou t f o
hi h he o she is to e e pelled;
-
the ti e elapsed si e the offe e as o
itted a d the appli a t s o du t du i g that pe iod;
- the nationalities of the various persons concerned;
-
the appli a t s fa il situatio , su h as the le gth of the a iage, a d othe fa to s e p essi g the
effe ti e ess of a ouple s fa il life;
- whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship;
- whether there are children of the marriage, and if so, their age; and
- the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant
is to be expelled.
- the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any
children of the applicant are likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled; and
- the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.
EMD har i sin praksis anvendt de samme momenter i proportionalitetsafvejningen, som er oplistet i sagerne
Boultif
og
Üner,
også i sager, hvor der ikke er begået kriminalitet.
Sagen
Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (2007)
omhandler ulovligt ophold, og EMD udtalte i præmis 48:
Side
58
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0060.png
The Cou t fu the eite ates that, o eo e , A ti le does ot e tail a ge e al o ligatio fo a State to
respect immigrants' choice of the country of their residence and to authorise family reunion in its territory.
Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State's obligations
to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances
of the persons involved and the general interest. Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent
to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are
insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and
whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or
considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion. Another important consideration will also be
whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status
of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would be precarious from
the outset. The Court has previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most
exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of
Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-..., with
fu the efe e es .
[understreget her]
EMD har i sin praksis udtalt, at vægtningen af de enkelte elementer i proportionalitetsafvejningen afhænger
af de konkrete omstændigheder i hver enkelt sag, se fx
Maslov v. Austria (2008),
hvor EMD i præmis 70
udtalte:
The Cou t ould st ess that hile the ite ia hi h e e ge f o its ase-law
and are spelled out in the
Boultif and Üner judgments are meant to facilitate the application of Article 8 in expulsion cases by domestic
courts, the weight to be attached to the respective criteria will inevitably vary according to the specific
circumstances of each case.
3.3.3.3. Betydningen af indgrebets karakter og varighed
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen skal indgrebets karakter og tidsmæssige udstrækning tillægges betydning,
herunder hvor lang tid indgrebet har påvirket eller vil påvirke en beskyttet rettighed.
I sager om immigration og opholdstilladelser vil det derfor have betydning, om indgrebet indebærer, at retten
til familieliv eller privatliv vil blive påvirket midlertidigt eller permanent. Ligeledes har det betydning, med
hvilken intensitet indgrebet har påvirket eller vil påvirke denne rettighed.
I sager, hvor en person mister sit opholdsgrundlag, kan det derfor have betydning for
proportionalitetsvurderingen, hvorvidt klageren efterfølgende har mulighed for at genindrejse på statens
territorie, eller om klageren helt afskæres fra denne mulighed.
I en sag om alvorlig kriminalitet,
Mehemi v. France (1997),
lagde EMD vægt på, at klageren blev udvist for
bestandigt fra sit opholdsland.
I præmis 37 udtalte EMD:
Ne e theless, i ie of the appli a t s la k of li ks ith Alge ia, the st e gth of his li ks ith F a e a d
above all the fact that the order for his permanent exclusion from French territory separated him from his
Side
59
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0061.png
minor children and his wife, the Court considers that the measure in question was disproportionate to the
aims pursued.
The e has a o di gl ee a ea h of A ti le .
I en sag om ulovligt ophold og mindre alvorlig kriminalitet,
Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (2007),
lagde EMD
i vurderingen bl.a. vægt på, at indrejseforbuddet var tidsbegrænset.
I præmis 52 udtalte EMD:
[…]
In any event, the decision to declare the applicant an undesirable alien does not entail a permanent
exclusion order, but an exclusion order of a temporary validity in the sense that
–
at the applicant's request
–
it a e lifted afte a li ited u e of ea s of eside
outside of the Nethe la ds.
EMD udtalte i samme præmis om hindringer for udlevelse af familielivet udenfor medlemsstatens grænser
at:
As ega ds the
question whether there are any insurmountable obstacles for the exercise of the family life at
issue outside of the Netherlands, the Court notes that the applicant's son will come of age in April 2007
whereas, according to its well-established case-law under Article 8, relationships between adult relatives do
not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without further elements of dependency involving more than
the normal emotional ties (see Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001). The Court considers
the fact that the applicant's son is suffering from asthma does not constitute such a further element of
dependency. The Court further notes that the applicant was born in Serbia where she lived until the age of
seven, that she held a valid
passpo t issued i Pa če o Se ia
the autho ities of the fo e So ialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia when she filed her second request for a Netherlands residence permit in 1991,
and that her claim of having become stateless after the dissolution of this Federal Republic is no more than
conjecture. The same applies to her claim that Mr G. is stateless and might be denied admission to her country
of origin.
[…]
3.3.3.4. Margin of appreciation (staternes skønsmargin ved proportionalitetsvurderingen)
Det er de nationale myndigheder, som skal vurdere, om et indgreb er proportionalt med det ønskede legitime
formål, og såvel de inddragede hensyn som myndighedernes afvejning af hensynene overfor hinanden skal
tydeligt fremgå af afgørelsen.
I sagen
Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (2007)
præmis 46 udtalte EMD:
I oth o te ts ega d ust e had to
the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests
of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of
app e iatio .
Sagen vedrørte en klager, som aldrig havde haft lovligt ophold i medlemsstaten, og som tillige havde begået
mindre alvorlig kriminalitet. Klageren havde under sit ulovlige ophold stiftet familie i medlemsstaten.
I den konkrete sag afvejede de nationale myndigheder hensynet til statens kontrol med immigration og
forebyggelse af kriminalitet overfor hensynet til familielivet i staten.
Side
60
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0062.png
EMD fandt, at denne afvejning af de to modsatrettede hensyn var sket korrekt, hvorfor der ikke forelå en
krænkelse af artikel 8. I præmis 53 udtalte EMD:
The fo egoi g o side atio s a e suffi ie t to e a le the Cou t to o lude that it a ot e said that the
Netherlands authorities have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant's interests on the one hand
and its own interest in controlling immigration and public expenditure and in the prevention of disorder or
crime on the other. Consequently, there has been no violation of the applicant's right to respect for her rights
guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
Modsat vurderede EMD i sagen
Jakupovic v. Austria (2003),
at den indklagede stat havde overtrådt den
tilladte skønsmargin.
Klageren var blevet udvist til hjemlandet Bosnien-Herzegovina på grund af mindre alvorlig og hovedsagelig
ikke-personfarlig kriminalitet begået i opholdslandet. Pågældende var indrejst i opholdslandet som 12-årig
og var på afgørelsestidspunktet 16 år. EMD udtalte i den forbindelse i præmis 29:
Thus, the Cou t o side s that e
eight easo s ha e to e put fo a d to justif the e pulsio of a ou g
person (16 years old), alone, to a country which has recently experienced a period of armed conflict with all
its ad e se effe ts o li i g o ditio s a d ith o e ide e of lose elati es li i g the e.
EMD udtalte i præmis 30, at:
The Go e
e t el i this espe t o the appli a t's i i al e o d. The Cou t fi ds that this ecord,
which
is the essential element of justification for the expulsion, must be examined very carefully. It consists of two
convictions for burglary. The Court cannot find that these convictions
–
even taking into account a further set
of criminal proceedings which were discontinued after the victim had been compensated by the applicant
–
for which the Austrian courts had only imposed conditional sentences of imprisonment can be considered
particularly serious as these offences did not involve elements of violence. The only element which may
indicate any tendency of the applicant towards violent behaviour was a prohibition to possess arms issued in
May 1995. Although the seriousness of such a measure should not be underestimated, it cannot be compared
to a conviction for an act of violence, and there is no indication that such charges have ever been brought
agai st the appli a t.
Den indklagede stat anførte, at indgrebet var nødvendigt i forhold til at forebygge kriminalitet.
I præmis 32 udtalte EMD:
Taki
g all the above elements into account, the Court finds that by imposing the residence prohibition in the
particular circumstances of the case, the Austrian authorities have overstepped their margin of appreciation
under Article 8 as the reasons in support of the necessity of the residence prohibition are not sufficiently
weighty. The Court is therefore of the opinion that the interference was not proportionate to the aim
pu sued.
Se endvidere
Maslov v. Austria (2008),
præmis 76:
Fi all , the Cou t eite ates that atio al autho ities e jo a e tai
a gi of app e iatio he assessi g
whether an interference with a right protected by Article 8 was necessary in a democratic society and
Side
61
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0063.png
proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 113, ECHR 2003-X,
and Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 28, Series A no. 138). However, the Court has consistently
held that its task consists in ascertaining whether the impugned measures struck a fair balance between the
ele a t i te ests, a el the i di idual s ights p ote ted
the Co e tio o the o e ha d a d the
o
u it s i te ests o the othe
(see, among many other authorities, Boultif, cited above, § 47). Thus, the
State s a gi of
appreciation goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation
and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see, mutatis mutandis, Société Colas
Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 47, ECHR 2002-III). The Court is therefore empowered to give the
final ruling on whether an expulsion measure is reconcilable with Article 8.
Har medlemsstaterne foretaget en indgående prøvelse af sagen og i afvejningen inddraget og vurderet alle
relevante hensyn, er EMD i overensstemmelse med subsidiaritetsprincippet tilbageholdende med at foretage
sin egen prøvelse. EMD indrømmer også medlemsstaterne en såkaldt skønsmargin (margin of appreciation)
i den praktiske anvendelse af konventionens bestemmelser og i proportionalitetsafvejningen, når den
pågældende medlemsstat i afvejningen har inddraget og vurderet alle relevante hensyn. Det indebærer, at
EMD ikke foretager en tilbundsgående prøvelse af den af medlemsstaten foretagne afvejning i den enkelte
sag.
Omfanget af skønsmarginen i den enkelte sag afgøres på baggrund af en vurdering af karakteren af indgrebet
og den rettighed, der foretages indgreb i. Således vil medlemsstaterne typisk indrømmes en videre
skønsmargin i sager, hvor indgrebet er begrundet i moralske vurderinger og politiske prioriteringer i det
pågældende land og en snævrere skønsmargin i sager, hvor indgrebet påvirker grundlæggende aspekter af
individets liv.
Se endvidere præmis 76 i sagen
Ndidi v. UK (2017),
som handlede om udvisning af en kriminel udlænding:
The e ui e e t fo
European supervision does not mean that in determining whether an impugned
easu e st u k a fai ala e et ee the ele a t i te ests, it is e essa il the Cou t s task to o du t the
Article 8 proportionality assessment afresh. […] where the independent and impartial domestic courts have
carefully examined the facts, applying the relevant human rights standards consistently with the Convention
and its case-la
, a d ade uatel ala ed the appli a t s pe so al i te ests agai st the o e ge e al pu li
interest in the case, it is not for it to substitute its own assessment of the merits (including, in particular, its
own assessment of the factual details of proportionality) for that of the competent national authorities. The
only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so (see, mutatis mutandis, Von
Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012). Consequently, in two
recent cases concerning the expulsion of settled migrants, the Court declined to substitute its conclusions for
those of the do esti ou ts, hi h had tho oughl assessed the appli a ts pe so al i u sta es, a efull
balanced the competing interests and took into account the criteria set out in its case law, and reached
conclusions which were neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable (see Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no.
25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017 and Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15,
§ , Ju e
.
Medlemsstaternes forhold til den skønsmargin, som EMD tillægger medlemsstaterne i den enkelte sag, var
et særskilt emne på Europarådets møde den 12. og 13. april 2018. Dette møde mundede ud i en erklæring,
som blev underskrevet af de 47 deltagende medlemslande. Denne erklæring, benævnt
Københavner
Erklæringen
(Copenhagen
Declaration)
omhandlede medlemsstaternes ønske om dels at præcisere EMD´s
Side
62
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
rolle i forhold til nationale domstole, samt at præcisere medlemsstaternes ret til en skønsmargin i konkrete
sager omhandlende EMRK´s rettigheder.
Under afsnittet om
European supervision
– the ole of the Cou t
udtalte Europarådet i punkterne 26 til 32,
at:
. The Cou t p o ides a safegua d fo iolatio s that ha e ot ee e edied at atio al le el a d
authoritatively interprets the Convention in accordance with relevant norms and principles of public
international law, and, in particular, in the light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, giving
appropriate consideration to present-day conditions.
27. The quality
a d i pa ti ula the la it a d o siste
of the Cou t s judg e ts a e i po ta t fo the
authority and effectiveness of the Convention system. They provide a framework for national authorities to
effectively apply and enforce Convention standards at domestic level.
. The p i iple of su sidia it , hi h o ti ues to de elop a d e ol e i the Cou t s ju isp ude e, guides
the way in which the Court conducts its review.
a) The Court, acting as a safeguard for individuals whose rights and freedoms are not secured at the national
level, may deal with a case only after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. It does not act as a court
of fourth instance.
b) The jurisprudence of the Court makes clear that States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation in how they
apply and implement the Convention, depending on the circumstances of the case and the rights and
freedoms engaged. This reflects that the Convention system is subsidiary to the safeguarding of human rights
at national level and that national authorities are in principle better placed than an international court to
evaluate local needs and conditions.
The Cou t s ju isp ude e o the a gi of app e iatio e og ises that i appl i g e tai Co e tio
provisions, such as Articles 8-11, there may be a range of different but legitimate solutions which could each
be compatible with the Convention depending on the context. This may be relevant when assessing the
proportionality of measures restricting the exercise of rights or freedoms under the Convention. Where a
balancing exercise has been undertaken at the national level in conformity with the criteria laid down in the
Cou t s ju isp ude e, the Cou t has ge e all i di ated that it ill ot su stitute its o assess e t fo that
of the domestic courts, unless there are strong reasons for doing so.
d) The margin of appreciation goes hand in hand with supervision under the Convention system, and the
decision as to whether there has been a violation of the Convention ultimately rests with the Court.
The Conference therefore:
29. Welcomes efforts taken by the Court to enhance the clarity and consistency of its judgments.
. App e iates the Cou t s effo ts to e su e that the i te p etatio of the Co e tio p o eeds i a a eful
and balanced manner.
Side
63
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0065.png
31. Welcomes the further development of the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of
appreciation by the Court in its jurisprudence.
. Wel o es the Cou t s o ti ued st i t a d o siste t appli atio of the ite ia o e i g ad issi
ility
and jurisdiction, including by requiring applicants to be more diligent in raising their Convention complaints
domestically, and making full use of the opportunity to declare applications inadmissible where applicants
have not suffered a significant
disad a tage.
4. Privatliv i praksis (Kapitlet er under udarbejdelse)
5. Familieliv (Kapitlet er under udarbejdelse)
6. Andre relevante konventioner
6.1.
Børnekonventionen
FN s ko e tio o
ar ets rettigheder
Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) - herefter betegnet
Børnekonventionen) blev ratificeret af Danmark den 5. juli 1991 ved kongelig resolution, efter at Folketinget
havde meddelt samtykke den 31. maj 1991. Konventionen trådte i kraft den 18. august 1991.
FN s ko ité o
ar ets rettigheder
the Committee on the Rights of the Child,
herefter betegnet
Børnekomitéen) blev oprettet i 1991 i henhold til konventionens artikel 43 og består af 18 medlemmer, som
sædvanligvis mødes tre gange årligt. Medlemmerne vælges af de stater, der har tiltrådt konventionen.
Komitéen overvåger medlemsstaternes implementering af nationale tiltag, der realiserer konventionens
forpligtelser. De deltagende stater skal afgive beretninger til komitéen om de foranstaltninger, de træffer for
at gennemføre deres forpligtelser ifølge konventionen.
Den 27. august 2002 ratificerede Danmark den valgfri tillægsprotokol af 25. maj 2000 til FN-konventionen
om barnets rettigheder vedrørende inddragelse af børn i væbnede konflikter, og den trådte i kraft den 27.
september 2002.
Den 24. juli 2003 ratificerede Danmark den valgfri tillægsprotokol af 25. maj 2000 til FN-konventionen om
barnets rettigheder vedrørende salg af børn, børneprostitution og børnepornografi, og den trådte i kraft den
24. august 2003.
Senest har Danmark den 7. oktober 2015 ratificeret den valgfri tillægsprotokol af 19. december 2011 om en
procedure for henvendelser til konventionen af 20. november 1989 om barnets rettigheder, og den trådte i
kraft den 7. januar 2016. Danmark har ved ratificeringen anerkendt, at Børnekomitéen har kompetence til at
behandle klager fra enkeltpersoner eller grupper af enkeltpersoner over statens krænkelse af de i
konventionen givne rettigheder
–
den såkaldte individuelle klageadgang, jf. tillægsprotokollens artikel 1 og
5. Komitéens udtalelser er ikke retligt bindende.
Af præamblen til Børnekonventionen fremgår det, at staterne er:
Co i ed that the fa il , as the fu da e tal g oup of so iet a d the atu al e i o e
t for the growth
and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and
assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
Side
64
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0066.png
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up
i a fa il e i o e t, i a at osphe e of happi ess, lo e a d u de sta di g,
Ved afgørelser om inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse af eller bortfald af opholdstilladelser er de mest
relevante bestemmelser i Børnekonventionen artiklerne 3, 9 og 12.
Artikel 3 omhandler
hø t
.
a ets ta
,
artikel 9
adskillelse f a fo æld e
og artikel 12
a ets et til at li e
For mere information om Børnekonventionen henvises til OHCRC´s
hjemmeside.
EMD har i nogle sager vedrørende medlemsstaternes udsendelse af udlændinge inddraget
Børnekonventionens artikel 3, stk. 1, i sin vurdering efter EMRK artikel 8. Sagerne har vedrørt dels udsendelse
af mindreårige udlændinge, dels udsendelse af udlændinge med mindreårige børn i medlemsstaten.
6.1.1. Relevante artikler i Børnekonventionen
6.1.1.1. Børnekonventionens artikel 3
– ” ar ets tarv”
Den engelske ordlyd i artikel 3
er som følger:
A ti le
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts
of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-
being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals
legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative
measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection
of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas
of safet , health, i the u e a d suita ilit of thei staff, as ell as o pete t supe isio .
Den danske ordlyd, jf.
Bekendtgørelse af FN-konvention af 20. november 1989 om barnets rettigheder
af
16. januar 1992, er:
A tikel
1. I alle foranstaltninger vedrørende børn, hvad enten disse udøves af offentlige eller private institutioner for
socialt velfærd, domstole, forvaltningsmyndigheder eller lovgivende organer, skal barnets tarv komme i
første række.
2. Deltagerstaterne påtager sig at sikre barnet den beskyttelse og omsorg, der er nødvendig for dettes trivsel
under hensyntagen til de rettigheder og pligter, der gælder for barnets forældre, værge eller andre
personer med juridisk ansvar for barnet, og skal med henblik herpå træffe alle passende
lovgivningsmæssige og administrative forholdsregler.
Side
65
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0067.png
3. Deltagerstaterne skal sikre, at institutioner, tjenester og organer med ansvar for omsorg for eller
beskyttelse af børn skal være i overensstemmelse med de standarder, der er fastsat af kompetente
myndigheder, særligt med hensyn til sikkerhed, sundhed, personalets antal og egnethed samt sagkyndigt
tils .
O
egre et
ar ets tar , fre går det af
The 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child,
principle 2, at:
The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other
means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal
manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests
of the hild shall e the pa a ou t o side atio .
Det fremgår af Børnekomitéens
General comment No. 5
af 27. november 2003 om
Ge e al
i ple e tatio of the Co e tio o the Rights of the Child
i punkt 12, at:
easu es of
The de elop e t of a hild e s ights pe spe ti e th oughout
Government, parliament and the judiciary is
required for effective implementation of the whole Convention and, in particular, in the light of the following
articles in the Convention identified by the Committee as general principles:
[…]
Article 3 (1): the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. The
article refers to actions undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law,
administrative authorities or legislative bodies . The principle requires active measures throughout
Government, parliament and the judiciary. Every legislative, administrative and judicial body or institution is
e ui ed to appl the est i te ests p i iple s ste ati all o side i g ho hild e s
rights and interests
are or will be affected by their decisions and actions - by, for example, a proposed or existing law or policy or
administrative action or court decision, including those which are not directly concerned with children, but
indirectly affe
t hild e .
Af
General comment No. 7
af 20. september 2006 om
I ple e ti g hild ights i ea l
det endvidere af punkt 13, at:
hildhood
fremgår
[…] The p i iple of est i te ests applies to all a tio s o e i g hild e a d e ui es a ti e easu es to
protect their rights and promote their survival, growth, and well-being, as well as measures to support and
assist parents and others who have day-to-da
espo si ilit fo ealizi g hild e s ights.
Det fremgår af
General comment No. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a
primary consideration (art. 3, para 1)
af 29. maj 2013, afsnit I A, at:
The Co
ittee u de li es that the hild's est i te ests is a th eefold o ept:
a) A substantive right: The right of the child to have his or her best interests assessed and taken as
a primary consideration when different interests are being considered in order to reach a decision
on the issue at stake, and the guarantee that this right will be implemented whenever a decision
is to be made concerning a child, a group of identified or unidentified children or children in
Side
66
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0068.png
general. Article 3, paragraph 1, creates an intrinsic obligation for States, is directly applicable
(self-executing) and can be invoked before a court.
b) A fundamental, interpretative legal principle: If a legal provision is open to more than one
i te p etatio , the i te p etatio
hi h ost effe ti el se es the hild s est i te ests should
be chosen. The rights enshrined in the Convention and its Optional Protocols provide the
framework for interpretation.
c) A rule of procedure: Whenever a decision is to be made that will affect a specific child, an
identified group of children or children in general, the decision-making process must include an
evaluation of the possible impact (positive or negative) of the decision on the child or children
concerned. Assessing and determining the best interests of the child require procedural
guarantees. Furthermore, the justification of a decision must show that the right has been
explicitly taken into account. In this regard, States parties shall explain how the right has been
espe ted i the de isio , that is, hat has ee o side ed to e i the hild s est i te ests;
what criteria it
is ased o ; a d ho the hild s i te ests ha e ee
eighed agai st othe
o side atio s, e the
oad issues of poli o i di idual ases.
Om selve begrebet anføres det endvidere under afsnit II i
General comment No. 14 (2013),
at:
The est i te ests of the hild is a d a i
e ol i g.
o ept that e o passes a ious issues hi h a e o ti uousl
Det anføres under afsnit III i
General comment No. 14 (2013),
at:
A ti le , pa ag aph , esta lishes a f a e o k ith th ee different
types of obligations for States parties:
(a) The obligation to ensure that the child's best interests are appropriately integrated and consistently
applied in every action taken by a public institution, especially in all implementation measures,
administrative and judicial proceedings which directly or indirectly impact on children;
(b) The obligation to ensure that all judicial and administrative decisions as well as policies and legislation
concerning children demonstrate that the child's best interests have been a primary consideration.
This includes describing how the best interests have been examined and assessed, and what weight
has been ascribed to them in the decision.
(c) The obligation to ensure that the interests of the child have been assessed and taken as a primary
consideration in decisions and actions taken by the private sector, including those providing services,
o a othe p i ate e tit o i stitutio
aki g de isio s that o e o i pa t o a hild.
Det anføres endvidere, at:
I gi i g full effe t to the hild s est i te ests, the follo i g pa a ete s should e o e i
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
i d:
The u i e sal, i di isi le, i te depe de t a d i te elated atu e of hild e s ights;
Recognition of children as right holders;
The global nature and reach of the Convention;
The obligation of States parties to respect, protect and fulfill all the rights in the Convention;
Short-, medium- and long-te
effe ts of a tio s elated to the de elop e t of the hild o e ti e.
Side
67
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0069.png
I
General comment No. 14 (2013)
oplistes videre de elementer, som skal indgå i vurderingen af hensynet til
barnets tarv:
The child's views
The child's identity
Preservation of the family environment and maintaining relations
Care, protection and safety of the child
Situation of vulnerability
The hild s ight to health
The hild s ight to edu atio
Om hvorledes ovenstående elementer skal anvendes i afvejningen af hensynet til barnets tarv anføres:
It should e e phasized that the asi est-interests
assessment is a general assessment of all relevant
ele e ts of the hild s est i te ests, the eight of ea h ele e t depe di g o the
others. Not all the
elements will be relevant to every case, and different elements can be used in different ways in different cases.
The content of each element will necessarily vary from child to child and from case to case, depending on the
type of decision and the concrete circumstances, as will the importance of each element in the overall
assess e t.
Der kan endvidere henvises til
Implementation handbook for the convention on the rights of the child
herefter I ple e tatio Ha d ook
udgivet af UNICEF i 2007, side 35-36.
Der henvises til afsnit 6.1.2 for praksis.
6.1.1.2. Børnekonventionens artikel 9
– ”adskillelse fra forældre”
Den engelske ordlyd
i artikel 9 er som følger:
Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will,
except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law
and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may
be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one
where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an
opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain
personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's
best interests.
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention,
imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the
Side
68
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0070.png
custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the
parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning
the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be
detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a
e uest shall of itself e tail o ad e se o se ue es fo the pe so s o e ed.
Den danske ordlyd, jf.
Beke dtgø else af FN-ko e tio af
16. januar 1992 er:
Artikel 9
1. Deltagerstaterne skal sikre, at barnet ikke adskilles fra sine forældre mod deres vilje, undtagen når
kompetente myndigheder, hvis afgørelser er undergivet retlig prøvelse, i overensstemmelse med gældende
lov og praksis bestemmer, at en sådan adskillelse er nødvendig af hensyn til barnets tarv. En sådan beslutning
kan være nødvendig i særlige tilfælde, f.eks. ved forældres misbrug eller vanrøgt af barnet, eller hvor
forældrene lever adskilt og der skal træffes beslutning om barnets bopæl.
2. I behandlingen af enhver sag i medfør af stykke 1 skal alle interesserede parter gives mulighed for at deltage
i sagsbehandlingen og fremføre deres synspunkter.
3. Deltagerstaterne skal respektere retten for et barn, der er adskilt fra den ene eller begge forældre, til at
opretholde regelmæssig personlig forbindelse og direkte kontakt med begge forældre, undtagen hvis dette
strider mod barnets tarv.
4. Hvor en sådan adskillelse er en følge af en handling iværksat af en deltagerstat, såsom tilbageholdelse,
fængsling, udvisning, forvisning (langvarigt, tvungent ophold i et fremmed land eller på et bestemt sted, fx
som straf, (red.)) eller død (herunder dødsfald af en hvilken som helst årsag, mens personen er i statens
varetægt) af den ene eller begge forældre eller af barnet, skal deltagerstaten efter anmodning give
forældrene, barnet eller om nødvendigt et andet medlem af familien de væsentlige oplysninger om, hvor den
eller de fraværende medlemmer af familien befinder sig, medmindre afgivelsen af oplysningerne ville være
skadelig for barnets velfærd. Deltagerstaterne skal desuden sikre, at fremsættelsen af en sådan anmodning
ikke i sig selv medfører skadelige
følge fo edko
e de pe so elle pe so e .
Børnekomitéen har ikke udarbejdet en
General comment
omhandlende artikel 9.
Det fremgår af Implementation Handbook, side 121, at
A ti le of the Co e tio o the Rights of the Child
enshrines two esse
tial p i iples of hild e s ights: fi st, that hild e should ot e sepa ated f o thei
parents unless it is necessary for their best interests and, second, that all procedures to separate children from
parents on that ground must be fair. It also
affi s hild e s ights to ai tai elatio s a d o ta t ith
both parents, and places a duty on the State to inform parent and child of the whereabouts of either if the
State has aused thei sepa atio fo e a ple depo tatio o i p iso e t .
Det fremgår dog ikke af Implementation Handbook, hvorledes de ovenstående principper konkret skal
anvendes i sager, hvor der sker nægtelse af forlængelse, inddragelse eller bortfald af opholdstilladelser.
6.1.1.3. Børnekonventionens artikel 12
– ” ar ets ret til at live hørt”
. o e
e
o
a ets ettighede
af
Side
69
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0071.png
Den engelske ordlyd i artikel 12
er som følger:
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express
those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance
with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and
administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate
body, in a manner consiste
t ith the p o edu al ules of atio al la .
Den danske ordlyd i artikel 12
er som følger:
Artikel 12
1. Deltagerstaterne skal sikre et barn, der er i stand til at udforme sine egne synspunkter, retten til frit at
udtrykke disse synspunkter i alle forhold, der vedrører barnet; barnets synspunkter skal tillægges passende
vægt i overensstemmelse med dets alder og modenhed.
2. Med henblik herpå skal barnet især gives mulighed for at udtale sig i enhver behandling ved dømmende
myndighed eller forvaltningsmyndighed af sager, der vedrører barnet, enten direkte eller gennem en
repræsentant eller et passende organ i overensstemmelse med de i national ret foreskrevne
f e ga gs åde .
Det fremgår af Børnekomiteens
General Comment No. 12 (2009)
om
The right of the child to be heard,
punkt
2, at:
The ight of all hild e to e hea d a d take se iousl o stitutes o e of the fu da e tal alues of the
Convention. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) has identified article 12 as one of the
four general principles of the Convention, the others being the right to non-discrimination, the right to life
a d de elop e t, a d the p i a o side atio of the hild s est i te ests, hi h highlights the fa t that
this article establishes not only a right in itself, but should also be considered in the interpretation and
imple
e tatio of all othe ights.
I punkt 15 fremgår det, at:
A ti le of the Co e tio esta lishes the ight of e e hild to f eel e p ess he o his ie s, i
all matters
affe ti g he o hi , a d the su se ue t ight fo those ie s to e gi e due eight, a o di g to the hild s
age and maturity. This right imposes a clear legal obligation on States parties to recognize this right and
ensure its implementation by listening to the views of the child and according them due weight. This obligation
requires that States parties, with respect to their particular judicial system, either directly guarantee this right,
or adopt or revise laws so that this right can be
full e jo ed the hild.
Endvidere fremgår det af punkt 18, at:
A ti le
a ifests that the hild holds ights hi h ha e a i flue e o he o his life, a d ot o l ights
derived from her or his vulnerability (protection) or dependency on adults (provision). The Convention
Side
70
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
recognizes the child as a subject of rights, and the nearly universal ratification of this international instrument
States pa ties e phasizes this status of the hild, hi h is lea l e p essed i a ti le .
Om indholdet i artikel 12, stk. 2, fremgår det af punkt 32, at:
A ti le , pa ag aph , spe ifies that oppo tu ities to e hea d ha e to e p o ided i pa ti ula
in any
judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child . The Committee emphasizes that this provision
applies to all relevant judicial proceedings affecting the child, without limitation, including, for example,
separation of parents, custody, care and adoption, children in conflict with the law, child victims of physical
or psychological violence, sexual abuse or other crimes, health care, social security, unaccompanied children,
asylum-seeking and refugee children, and victims of armed conflict and other emergencies. Typical
administrative proceedings include, for example, decisions about child
e s edu atio , health, e i o e t,
living conditions, or protection. Both kinds of proceedings may involve alternative dispute mechanisms such
as ediatio a d a it atio .
Af punkt 33 fremgår det videre, at:
The ight to e hea d applies oth to
proceedings which are initiated by the child, such as complaints against
ill-treatment and appeals against school exclusion, as well as to those initiated by others which affect the
child, such as parental separation or adoption. States parties are encouraged to introduce legislative
measures requiring decision makers in judicial or administrative proceedings to explain the extent of the
o side atio gi e to the ie s of the hild a d the o se ue es fo the hild.
Om staternes implementering af Børnekonventionens artikel 12 fremgår det af punkterne 40-47:
I ple e tatio of the t o pa ag aphs of a ti le
e ui es fi e steps to e take i o de to effe ti el
realize the right of the child to be heard whenever a matter affects a child or when the child is invited to give
her or his views in a formal proceeding as well as in other settings. These requirements have to be applied in
a way which is appropriate for the given context.
(a) Preparation
41.Those responsible for hearing the child have to ensure that the child is informed about her or his right to
express her or his opinion in all matters affecting the child and, in particular, in any judicial and administrative
decision-making processes, and about the impact that his or her expressed views will have on the outcome.
The child must, furthermore, receive information about the option of either communicating directly or
through a representative. She or he must be aware of the possible consequences of this choice. The decision
maker must adequately prepare the child before the hearing, providing explanations as to how, when and
where the hearing will take place and who the participants will be, and has to take account of the views of
the child in this regard.
(b) The hearing
42.The context in which a child exercises her or his right to be heard has to be enabling and encouraging, so
that the child can be sure that the adult who is responsible for the hearing is willing to listen and seriously
consider what the child has decided to communicate. The person who will hear the views of the child can be
an adult involved in the matters affecting the child (e.g. a teacher, social worker or caregiver), a decision
Side
71
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0073.png
maker in an institution (e.g. a director, administrator or judge), or a specialist (e.g. a psychologist or
physician).
43. Experience indicates that the situation should have the format of a talk rather than a one
‑
sided
examination. Preferably, a child should not be heard in open court, but under conditions of confidentiality.
(c) Assessment of the capacity of the child
. The hild s ie s ust e gi e due eight, he a ase-by-case
analysis indicates that the child is
capable of forming her or his own views. If the child is capable of forming her or his own views in a reasonable
and independent manner, the decision maker must consider the views of the child as a significant factor in
the settlement of the issue. Good practice for assessing the capacity of the child has to be developed.
(d) Information about the weight given to the views of the child (feedback)
45. Since the child enjoys the right that her or his views are given due weight, the decision maker has to inform
the child of the outcome of the process and explain how her or his views were considered. The feedback is a
guarantee that the views of the child are not only heard as a formality, but are taken seriously. The
information may prompt the child to insist, agree or make another proposal or, in the case of a judicial or
administrative procedure, file an appeal or a complaint.
(e) Complaints, remedies and redress
46. Legislation is needed to provide children with complaint procedures and remedies when their right to be
heard and for their views to be given due weight is disregarded and violated. Children should have the
possibility of addressi
g a o uds a o a pe so of a o pa a le ole i all hild e s i stitutio s, i te
alia, in schools and day-care centres, in order to voice their complaints. Children should know who these
persons are and how to access them. In the case of family confli
ts a out o side atio of hild e s ie s, a
child should be able to turn to a person in the youth services of the community.
47. If the right of the child to be heard is breached with regard to judicial and administrative proceedings (art.
12, para. 2), the child must have access to appeals and complaints procedures which provide remedies for
rights violations. Complaints procedures must provide reliable mechanisms to ensure that children are
confident that using them will not expose them to risk of viole
e o pu ish e t.
6.1.1.4. Samspillet mellem artikel 12 og andre af Børnekonventionens bestemmelser
Under afsnit B i
General Comment No. 12 (2009)
udtalte Børnekomitéen i punkt 68, at:
A ti le , as a ge e al p i iple, is li ked to the othe ge e al p i iples of the Co e tio , su h as a ti le
(the right to non-discrimination), article 6 (the right to life, survival and development) and, in particular, is
interdependent with article 3 (primary consideration of the best interests of the child). The article is also
closely linked with the articles related to civil rights and freedoms, particularly article 13 (the right to freedom
of expression) and article 17 (the right to information). Furthermore, article 12 is connected to all other articles
of the Convention, which cannot be fully implemented if the child is not respected as a subject with her or his
own views on the rights enshri
ed i the espe ti e a ti les a d thei i ple e tatio .
Side
72
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
Endvidere fremgår det af punkt 74, at:
. The e is o te sio et ee a ti les a d , o l a o ple e ta ole of the t o ge e al p i iples:
one establishes the objective of achieving the best interests of the child and the other provides the
methodology for reaching the goal of hearing either the child or the children. In fact, there can be no correct
application of article 3 if the components of article 12 are not respected. Likewise, article 3 reinforces the
fu tio alit of a ti le , fa ilitati g the esse tial ole of hild e i all de isio s affe ti g thei li es.
General comment No. 12,
afsnit C, omhandler implementeringen af barnets ret til at blive hørt i forskellige
situationer. Under afsnit C 9,
I i
ig atio a d as lu p o eedi gs
, fremgår det af punkterne 123 og 124,
at:
.Child e
ho o e to a ou t follo i g thei pa e ts i sea h of o k o as efugees a e i a
particularly vulnerable situation. For this reason it is urgent to fully implement their right to express their
views on all aspects of the immigration and asylum proceedings. In the case of migration, the child has to be
heard on his or her educational expectations and health conditions in order to integrate him or her into school
and health services. In the case of an asylum claim, the child must additionally have the opportunity to present
her or his reasons leading to the asylum claim.
124.The Committee emphasizes that these children have to be provided with all relevant information, in their
own language, on their entitlements, the services available, including means of communication, and the
immigration and asylum process, in order to make their voice heard and to be given due weight in the
proceedings. A guardian or adviser should be appointed, free of charge. Asylum-seeking children may also
need effective family tracing and relevant information about the situation in their country of origin to
determine their best interests. Particular assistance may be needed for children formerly involved in armed
conflict to allow them to pronounce their needs. Furthermore, attention is needed to ensure that stateless
children are included in decision-
aki g p o esses ithi the te ito ies he e the eside.
General comment No. 12,
afsnit D, omhandler de grundlæggende krav til implementeringen af barnets ret til
at blive hørt. Af punkterne 132-134 fremgår det, at:
.The Co
ittee u ges States pa ties to a oid toke isti app oa hes, hi h li it hild e s e p essio
of
views, or which allow children to be heard, but fail to give their views due weight. It emphasizes that adult
manipulation of children, placing children in situations where they are told what they can say, or exposing
children to risk of harm through participation are not ethical practices and cannot be understood as
implementing article 12.
133. If participation is to be effective and meaningful, it needs to be understood as a process, not as an
individual one-off event. Experience since the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in 1989 has
led to a broad consensus on the basic requirements which have to be reached for effective, ethical and
meaningful implementation of article 12. The Committee recommends that States parties integrate these
requirements into all legislative and other measures for the implementation of article 12.
134. All processes in which a child or children are heard and participate, must be:
Side
73
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
(a)Transparent and informative - children must be provided with full, accessible, diversity-sensitive and age-
appropriate information about their right to express their views freely and their views to be given due weight,
and how this participation will take place, its scope, purpose and potential impact;
(b)Voluntary - children should never be coerced into expressing views against their wishes and they should be
informed that they can cease involvement at any stage;
(c)Respectful -
hild e s ie s ha e to e t eated ith espe t a d the should e p o ided ith oppo tu ities
to initiate ideas and activities. Adults working with children should acknowledge, respect and build on good
e a ples of hild e s pa ti ipatio , fo i sta e, i thei o t i utio s to the fa il , s hool, ultu e a d the
work environment. They also need an understanding of the socio-economic, environmental and cultural
o te t of hild e s li es. Pe so s a d o ga izatio s o ki g fo a d ith hild e should also espe t
hild e s ie s ith ega d to pa ti ipatio i pu li e e ts;
(d)Relevant - the issues on which children have the right to express their views must be of real relevance to
their lives and enable them to draw on their knowledge, skills and abilities. In addition, space needs to be
created to enable children to highlight and address the issues they themselves identify as relevant and
important;
(e)Child-friendly -
e i o e ts a d o ki g ethods should e adapted to hild e s apa ities. Ade uate
time and resources should be made available to ensure that children are adequately prepared and have the
confidence and opportunity to contribute their views. Consideration needs to be given to the fact that children
will need differing levels of support and forms of involvement according to their age and evolving capacities;
(f)Inclusive - participation must be inclusive, avoid existing patterns of discrimination, and encourage
opportunities for marginalized children, including both girls and boys, to be involved (see also para. 88 above).
Children are not a homogenous group and participation needs to provide for equality of opportunity for all,
without discrimination on any grounds. Programmes also need to ensure that they are culturally sensitive to
children from all communities;
(g)Supported by training - adults need preparation, skills and support
to fa ilitate hild e s pa ti ipatio
effectively, to provide them, for example, with skills in listening, working jointly with children and engaging
children effectively in accordance with their evolving capacities. Children themselves can be involved as
trainers and facilitators on how to promote effective participation; they require capacity-building to
strengthen their skills in, for example, effective participation awareness of their rights, and training in
organizing meetings, raising funds, dealing with the media, public speaking and advocacy;
(h)Safe and sensitive to risk - in certain situations, expression of views may involve risks. Adults have a
responsibility towards the children with whom they work and must take every precaution to minimize the risk
to children of violence, exploitation or any other negative consequence of their participation. Action necessary
to provide appropriate protection will include the development of a clear child-protection strategy which
recognizes the particular risks faced by some groups of children, and the extra barriers they face in obtaining
help. Children must be aware of their right to be protected from harm and know where to go for help if
needed. Investment in working with families and communities is important in order to build understanding of
the value and implications of participation, and to minimize the risks to which children may otherwise be
exposed;
Side
74
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0076.png
(i)Accountable - a commitment to follow-up and evaluation is essential. For example, in any research or
consultative process, children must be informed as to how their views have been interpreted and used and,
where necessary, provided with the opportunity to challenge and influence the analysis of the findings.
Children are also entitled to be provided with clear feedback on how their participation has influenced any
outcomes. Wherever appropriate, children should be given the opportunity to participate in follow-up
p o esses o a ti ities. Mo ito i g a d e aluatio of hild e s pa ti ipatio eeds to e u dertaken,
where
possi le, ith hild e the sel es.
6.1.2. Udtalelser fra Børnekomitéen
6.1.2.1. Børnekonventionens artikel 3
Det er ved gennemgangen af Børnekomitéens udtalelser konstateret, at der kun er behandlet en sag
omhandlende en inddragelse af en opholdstilladelse.
I udtalelse af 26. september 2019,
A.S. mod Danmark, communication No. 36/2017,
havde klageren (barnet)
og hans forældre fået inddraget deres opholdstilladelser, som var opnået på baggrund af svig. Klageren var
indrejst i Danmark som toårig sammen med sine forældre, og efter to et halvt år blev deres opholdstilladelser
inddraget, idet udlændingemyndighederne kom i besiddelse af oplysninger, der viste, at centrale
dokumenter og erklæringer, som faren havde fremlagt til støtte for sit asylmotiv, måtte anses som urigtige
og fremskaffet til brug for asylsagen.
Klageren anførte overfor komitéen, at Flygtningenævnet ikke havde forholdt sig til Børnekonventionen og til
klagerens risiko ved udsendelse til Pakistan, herunder for bl.a. at blive adskilt fra sin mor og udsat for
overgreb fra sin fars familie. Klageren gjorde gældende, at en udsendelse til Pakistan ville udgøre en
kræ kelse af flere este
elser i Bør eko e tio e , heri la dt artikel o
ar ets tar .
Børnekomitéen udtalte i punkt 9.4.:
The Co
ittee also otes the autho s lai
ased o a ti le of the Co e tio , efe i g to the fa t that
returning the author to Pakistan would be against the best interests of the child, placing him at risk of
sepa atio f o his othe , a d that Da ish autho ities did ot take the autho s pa ti ula i u sta es
into account during relevant procedures. Ho
e e , the Co
ittee takes ote of the State pa t s a gu e ts
that due o side atio
as gi e to the autho s est i te ests th oughout all ele a t p o edu es,
considering his particular circumstances (including his age, school attendance, language skills and family
situation) as an integral part of those procedures and that the author has failed to identify any concrete
irregularity in the decision-making process or risk factors for which the Danish authorities have failed to
p ope l o side .
Komitéen udtalte i pkt. 9.5.-9.6. generelt om inddragelse af hensynet til barnets tarv:
. . The Co
ittee e alls that the assess e t of the e iste e of a isk of se ious iolatio s of the
Convention in the receiving State should be conducted in an age- and gender-sensitive manner, that the best
interests of the child should be a primary consideration in decisions concerning the return of a child, and that
such decisions should ensure that the child, upon return, will be safe and provided with proper care and
Side
75
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0077.png
enjoyment of rights. The best interests of the child should be ensured explicitly through individual procedures
as an integral part of any administrative or judicial decision concerning the return of a child.
9.6. The Committee also recalls that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Convention to
review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether a risk of a serious violation of the
Convention exists upon return, unless it is found that such evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a
de ial of justi e.
I punkt 9.7.-9.8. udtalte komitéen om den konkrete sag:
. . I the p ese t ase, the Co
ittee otes that the Da ish Refugee Appeals Boa d a d the I
ig atio
Appeals Boa d ha e assessed the autho s e g ound
for requesting asylum, namely, the alleged threats
ade the autho s pate al elati es i Pakista , togethe ith the autho s pa ti ula i u sta es, ut
rejected this ground, considering it unreliable and elaborative. These organs concluded that the author would
ot fa e a isk of ei g sepa ated f o his othe if etu ed to Pakista a d that it as i the autho s est
interest to remain with his mother.
9.8. The Committee observes that, while the author disagrees with the conclusion reached by the Danish
Refugee Appeals Board and Immigration Appeals Board, he has not shown that their assessment of the facts
and evidence presented by the author was arbitrary or otherwise amounted to a denial of justice. The
Committee therefore considers that this part of the communication is also insufficiently substantiated and
de la es it i ad issi le u de a ti le f of the Optio al P oto ol.
Komitéen afviste sagen som inadmissible.
Det bemærkes, at Børnekomitéen i andre udtalelser
–
f.eks. i sagen
K.Y.M. mod Danmark, communication
no. 3/2016 (2018),
og i sagen
A.Y. mod Danmark, communication no. 7/2016 (2018),
har udtalt sig om
inddragelsen af hensynet til barnets tarv i den asylretlige vurdering.
6.1.2.2. Børnekonventionens artikel 9
Det ses ikke, at komitéen har behandlet sager, hvori der er taget stilling til, om der forelå en krænkelse af
Børnekonventionens artikel 9. I Børnekomitéens udtalelser i sagerne
X. mod Finland, communication no.
6/2016 (2019),
og
J.S.H.R. mod Spanien, communication no. 13/2017 (2019),
havde klagerne henvist til, at
medlemsstaterne havde krænket artikel 9, men i begge sager afviste komitéen klagerne som inadmissible.
6.1.2.3. Børnekonventionens artikel 12
Det ses ikke, at Børnekomitéen har behandlet sager omhandlende nægtelse af forlængelse, inddragelse eller
bortfald af opholdstilladelser, hvor artikel 12 er blevet påberåbt.
Børnekomitéen har i et enkelt tilfælde behandlet en sag omhandlende familiesammenføring, hvor klageren
havde anført, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 3 sammenholdt med artikel 12.
I Børnekomitéens udtalelse i
Y.B & N.S v. Belgium, communication no. 12/2017 (2018)
var klageren blevet
anbragt i plejefamilie af hjemlandets myndigheder. I hjemlandet var dette sket ifølge en lovgivning, som
pålagde plejeforældrene en pligt til at beskytte, uddanne og tage vare på barnet, men ikke etablerede et
Side
76
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
juridisk bånd mellem barnet og plejeforældrene (kaldet
kafalah
i marokkansk lovgivning). Plejeforældrene
var statsborgere i opholdslandet, og de søgte på vegne af klageren om opholdstilladelse på baggrund af
familiesammenføring. De nationale myndigheder i opholdslandet (plejeforældrenes hjemland) gav afslag på
dette, ligesom de senere gav afslag på klagernes to ansøgninger om opholdstilladelse på baggrund af
humanitære årsager. Klagerne indbragte derefter sagen for Børnekomitéen med henvisning til, at der var
sket en krænkelse af bl.a. artikel 3 sammenholdt med artikel 12.
Om hensynet til barnets tarv, udtalte Børnekomitéen i punkt 8.3, at:
The Co
ittee e alls that i all a tio s o e i g hild e , the est i te ests of the hild ust e a p i a
consideration a
d that the o ept should e adjusted a d defi ed o a i di idual asis, a o di g to the
specific situation of the child or children concerned, taking into consideration their personal context, situation
a d eeds. Fo i di idual de isio s, the hild s
best interests must be assessed and determined in the light of
the spe ifi i u sta es of the pa ti ula hild.
Børnekomitéen behandlede i punkterne 8.6-8.8, hvorledes den proceduremæssige beskyttelse skulle
anvendes i den konkrete sag:
. With ega d to the autho s lai s ased o a ti le of the Co e tio , the Co
ittee otes the State
pa t s a gu e ts that C.E. as ea old at the ti e of the fi st de isio a d at the ti e of the se o d,
that she was not capable of forming her own views and that the need to allow a child to express his or her
views would not be justified for the purposes of applying the rules for granting residence permits.
8.7 The Committee points out, however, that article 12 imposes no age limit on the right of the child to
express her or his views, and discourages States parties from introducing age limits either in law or in practice
that ould est i t the hild s ight to e hea d i all atte s affe ti g he o hi . […] It is ot e essa that
the child has comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the matter affecting her or him, but that she or he
has suffi ie t u de sta di g to e apa le of app op iatel fo i g he o his o
ie s o the atte […].
It also notes that any decision that does not take into
a ou t the hild s ie s o does ot gi e thei ie s
due weight according to their age and maturity, does not respect the possibility for the child or children to
i flue e the dete i atio of thei est i te ests. […] The fa t that the hild is e oung
or in a vulnerable
situation (e.g. has a disability, belongs to a minority group, is a migrant, etc.) does not deprive him or her of
the ight to e p ess his o he ie s, o edu es the eight gi e to the hild s ie s i dete i i g his o
her best interests. The adoption of specific measures to guarantee the exercise of equal rights for children in
such situations must be subject to an individual assessment which assures a role to the children themselves
in the decision-making process.
8.8 The Co
ittee o se es i this ase that C.E. as ea s old he the se o d de isio o the autho s
application for a humanitarian visa was made and that she would have been perfectly capable of forming
views of her own regarding the possibility of living permanently with the authors in Belgium. The Committee
does ot sha e the State pa t s ie that it is ot e essa to take the ie s of a hild i to a ou t i
proceedings conducted to determine whether he or she should be issued a residence permit, quite on the
o t a . The i pli atio s of the p o eedi gs i the autho s ase a e of pa a ou t i po ta e fo C.E. s life
and future, insofar as they are directly tied to her chances of living with the authors as a member of their
fa il .
Side
77
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0079.png
Børnekomitéen fandt derefter i punkt 8.9, at:
I the light of the a o e, the Co
ittee o ludes that the State pa t did ot spe ifi all o side the est
interests of the child when it assessed the application for a visa for C.E. and did not allow her the right to be
heard,
i
ea h of a ti les a d of the Co e tio .
6.1.3. Anvendelse af Børnekonventionen i praksis ved EMD
EMD har i nogle sager vedrørende medlemsstaternes udsendelse af udlændinge inddraget
Børnekonventionens artikel 3, stk. 1, i sin vurdering efter EMRK artikel 8. Sagerne har vedrørt dels udsendelse
af mindreårige udlændinge, dels udsendelse af udlændinge med mindreårige børn i medlemsstaten.
Nedenfor følger en gennemgang af sager, hvor EMD har inddraget Børnekonventionens artikel 3, stk. 1, som
et blandt
flere ele e ter i proportio alitetsaf ej i ge . Det fre går af EMD s egru delse i h er e kelt sag,
hvordan princippet om barnets tarv har fundet anvendelse, og hvordan hensynet er indgået i den samlede
afvejning.
6.1.3.1. Alvorlig kriminalitet
Det ses ikke, at EMD har henvist til Børnekonventionen i domme, hvor der er begået alvorlig kriminalitet.
EMD har dog i følgende domme vurderet, om der var taget korrekt hensyn til barnets tarv ved
proportionalitetsvurderingen:
I sagen
A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom (2011)
var klageren tidligere blevet dømt for et seksuelt overgreb
begået mod en mindreårig samt to forsøg på røveri og overfald. Disse forhold blev begået, da klageren var
mindreårig. Som 30-årig blev klageren ydermere idømt fem års fængsel for røveri. I forbindelse med
dommen for røveri blev han ligeledes dømt til udvisning. Klageren blev udsendt ni år efter han var blevet
dømt for dette røveri. På tidspunktet for EMD´s afgørelse af sagen var klageren far til seks børn i alderen fra
12 til 17 år. Klageren var på daværende tidspunkt ikke i et forhold med mødrene til hans børn.
EMD henviste ved behandlingen af sagen ikke til Børnekonventionens artikel 3, men udtalte i præmis 40, at:
As ega ds the appli a t s elatio ship ith his hild e a d thei othe s, the Cou t otes that, as p edi ted
by the Tribunal, neither woman chose to accompany the applicant to Pakistan and both remain in the United
Ki gdo
ith thei hild e . The Cou t also otes that the e te t of the appli a t s elatio ship ith his
children and their mothers was limited even at the time of his deportation, given that he had not lived with
them since 1999 or seen the children since 2000. The applicant had not therefore seen his children in the ten
years prior to his deportation and the eldest child would only have been aged four the last time he or she had
seen his or her father. There was also, as noted by the Tribunal, some doubt as to whether the applicant
fulfilled a positi e ole i his hild e s li es, gi e that fou of the si had, at a ious ti es, ee o the so ial
se i es
at risk register. Given the length of time since the applicant last had face-to-face contact with his
children, as a result of his offending and consequent imprisonment, and the lack of evidence as to the
existence of a positive relationship between the applicant and his children, the Court takes the view that the
appli a t has ot esta lished that his hild e s est i te ests e e ad e sel affe ted his depo tatio .
I præmis 41 udtalte EMD, at:
Side
78
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0080.png
Fi all , the Cou t tu s to the uestio of the espe ti e solidit of the appli a t s ties to the U ited Ki gdo
and to Pakistan. The Court notes that, unlike his younger brother, the applicant returned to Pakistan for visits
following his arrival in the United Kingdom and also married there. In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, the Court assumes that this marriage is still, legally at least, subsisting. The applicant therefore
maintained some level of connection to his country of origin and was not deported as a stranger to the
country. As regards his ties to the United Kingdom, the Court has addressed the question of his family life,
both with his parents and siblings and with his various partners and children, above, and found it to be limited
i its e te t. Fu the o e, the appli a t s p i ate life i the U ited
Kingdom, as observed by the Tribunal, has
been constrained by his convictions and spells in prison. Whilst he was mainly educated in the United Kingdom
and has worked, he does not appear to have established a lengthy or consistent employment history. In short,
and despite the length of his stay, the applicant did not achieve a significant level of integration into British
society. The Court is aware that, as a settled migrant who spent much of his childhood in the United Kingdom,
serious reasons would be
e ui ed to e de the appli a t s depo tatio p opo tio ate see
Maslov, cited
above, § 75). However, having regard to his substantial offending history, including offences of violence and
recidivism following the commencement of deportation proceedings against him, the Court is of the view that
su h se ious easo s a e p ese t i the appli a t s ase. His p i ate a d fa il life i the U ited Ki gdo
were not such as to outweigh the risk he presented of future offending and harm to the public and his
depo
tatio as the efo e p opo tio ate to the legiti ate ai of p e e ti g i e. As su h, the appli a t s
depo tatio to Pakista did ot a ou t to a iolatio of A ti le .
EMD afviste derefter sagen som inadmissible.
Sagen
Salem v. Denmark (2016)
omhandlede en klager, som blev idømt seks års fængsel for narkokriminalitet
samt andre forhold og blev udvist med indrejseforbud for bestandigt.
EMD udtalte i præmis 78, at:
I the Cou t s ie it is dou tful hethe , o the asis of those state e ts, o o the ate ial efo e it, the
applicant has substantiated that he had a central role in the family (see paragraph 63 above) and that his
hild e s est i te ests e e ad e sel affe ted his depo tatio see, fo e a ple,
A.W. Khan v. the United
Kingdom, cited above, § 40).
I præmis 79 udtalte EMD endvidere, at
The Sup e e Cou t did ot e p essl state hethe it fou d that the e
were no insurmountable obstacles for
the appli a t s ife a d hild e to follo hi . It athe appea s that the ajo it fou d that i a e e t
the separation of the applicant from his wife and children could not outweigh the other counterbalancing
factors, notably that the applicant had a leading and central role in the commission of persistent, organised
a d agg a ated d ug i es see pa ag aph a o e .
EMD udtalte i præmis 82, at:
I the light of the a o e, the Cou t e og ises that the Sup e e Court
carefully balanced the competing
i te ests a d e pli itl took i to a ou t the ite ia set out i the Cou t s ase-la , i ludi g the appli a t s
family situation. Moreover, having regard to the gravity of the drug crimes committed by the applicant, and
considering the sovereignty of member States to control and regulate the residence of aliens on their territory,
Side
79
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0081.png
the Court finds that the interference was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons, and was proportionate
in that a fair balance was st
u k et ee the appli a t s ight to espe t fo his fa il life, o the o e ha d,
a d the p e e tio of diso de o i e, o the othe ha d.
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at der ikke var sket en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
I sagen
Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark (2018)
var klageren indrejst i en alder af 20 år. Klageren blev idømt fem
års fængsel for narkokriminalitet og udvist. Han havde på tidspunktet for udvisningen opholdt sig 20 år i
opholdslandet. Klageren havde under sit ophold fået seks børn i alderen fra syv til 14 år med to forskellige
kvinder.
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen udtalte EMD i præmis 54, at:
The remaining criterion in the case to be examined is the best interests and well-being of the children, in
pa ti ula the se ious ess of the diffi ulties hi h a of the appli a t s hild e a e likel to e ou te i the
country to which the applicant is to be expelled
.
Endvidere udtalte EMD i præmis 55, at:
I its judg e t
Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], (no. 12738/10, § 109, 3 October 2014), which concerned
fa il eu io , the Cou t eite ated that the e is a oad o se sus, i ludi g i i te
ational law, in support
of the idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests are of paramount importance ... Whilst
alone they cannot be decisive, such interests certainly must be afforded significant weight. Accordingly,
national decision-making bodies should, in principle, advert to and assess evidence in respect of the
practicality, feasibility and proportionality of any removal of a non-national parent in order to give effective
protection and sufficient weight to the best interests
of the hild e di e tl affe ted it.
I præmisserne 56 til 60 udtalte EMD, at:
. Whilst this p i iple applies to all de isio s o e i g hild e , the Cou t otes that i the o te t of the
removal of a non-national parent as a consequence of a criminal conviction, the decision first and foremost
concerns the offender. Furthermore, as case-law has shown, in such cases the nature and seriousness of the
offence committed or the offending history may outweigh the other criteria to take into account (see, for
example, Cömert v. Denmark (dec.), 14474/03, 10 April 2006; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], cited above, §§
62-64; and Salem v Denmark, cited above, § 76).
57. In the present case, when the revocation proceedings were pending before the District Court in 2013, the
appli a t s hild e e e app o i atel
, , , , a d ea s old. The ould all e ai i De a k,
so no question arose as to the seriousness of the difficulties which any children of the applicant are likely to
encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled . The issue was rather which difficulties they
would encounter in Denmark due to the separation from their father. The three eldest children would live with
their mother, X, as they had done since their parents divorced in 2001. The eldest son was living part-time in
an institution. The three youngest children would live with their mother, Y, as they had done since the
applicant was detained in April 2008.
Side
80
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0082.png
58. Both the District Court and the High Court found
u su sta tiated the appli a t s allegatio that the
hild e s health had dete io ated si e the e pulsio o de as issued i
. The appli a t s eldest so s
medical condition was also known in 2009.
59. The domestic courts also stated that the fact that, while imprisoned, the applicant has maintained contact
with his children since 2009, could not independently lead to the conclusion that there have been material
ha ges i [the appli a t s] i u sta es
(see section 50 of the Aliens Act).
60. The
do esti ou ts did ot as su h o
e t o X s allegatio that
It would be a disaster if her children
were separated permanently from their father. They had lived in a strong hope that they would reunite with
their father upon his release. She feared that her children would break down if [the applicant] were to be
deported. It would become very difficult to integrate them into Danish society . Nor did they take a stand on
Y s allegatio that he eldest so had a suppo t pe so . The easo as that he isolated
himself. The reason
why he isolated himself was that he missed being part of a whole family. It would help if he could be with [the
appli a t] ... It ould also ha e a e
egati e i pa t o the hild e if thei fathe e e depo ted.
EMD udtalte i præmis 61, at:
Apa t f o o se i g that su h state e ts a ot e o side ed esta lished fa ts, o the asis of the othe
ate ial efo e it, the Cou t is ot o i ed that the appli a t s hild e s est i te ests e e ad e sel
affected by the applica
t s depo tatio to su h a e te t that those should out eigh the othe ite ia to take
into account (see, for example, A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 6222/10, § 40, 20 December 2011).
EMD fandt på baggrund af ovenstående, at der ikke var sket en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
6.1.3.2. Mindre alvorlig kriminalitet
Sagen
Maslov v. Austria (2008)
omhandlede udvisningen af en ung mand, som havde begået mindre alvorlig
kriminalitet som mindreårig. Ved EMD´s behandling af klagen henviste EMD til relevant lovgivning og praksis,
herunder Børnekonventionen.
I præmis 36 henviste EMD til følgende relevante artikler i Børnekonventionen:
The U ited Natio s Co e tio o the Rights of the Child of
Party, provides:
Article 1
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years
unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Article 3 § 1
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts
of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.
Article 40 § 1
November 1989, to which Austria is a State
Side
81
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0083.png
States Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the
penal law to be treated in a manner consiste
t ith the p o otio of the hild s se se of dig it a d o th,
hi h ei fo es the hild s espe t fo the hu a ights a d fu da e tal f eedo s of othe s a d takes i to
a ou t the hild s age a d the desi a ilit of p o oti g the hild s ei teg atio a d the hild s assu i g a
constructive role in society.
Grundet klagerens unge alder, da han begik de kriminelle forhold og ved EMD´s efterfølgende behandling af
sagen, udtalte EMD i præmis 83:
The Cou t o side s that, he e e pulsio easu es agai
st a juvenile offender are concerned, the obligation
to take the best interests of the child into account includes an obligation to facilitate his or her reintegration.
In this connection, the Court notes that Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child makes
reintegration an aim to be pursued by the juvenile justice system (see paragraphs 36-
a o e . I the Cou t s
view this aim will not be achieved by severing family or social ties through expulsion, which must remain a
means of last resort in the case of a juvenile offender. It finds that these considerations were not sufficiently
take i to a ou t the Aust ia autho ities.
EMD fandt i den konkrete sag, at staten havde krænket EMRK artikel 8, idet indgrebet ikke var proportionalt.
6.1.3.3. Opholdstilladelse opnået på baggrund af svig
I sagen
Butt v. Norway (2012)
havde klageren opnået sin opholdstilladelse på baggrund af, at hans mor havde
udvist svig. De nationale myndigheder blev klar over dette, men inddrog ikke klagerens opholdstilladelse,
idet hans mor i mellemtiden var forsvundet, og fordi klageren var mindreårig, hvorfor myndighederne ikke
ville udsende ham uden hans mor. De nationale myndigheder inddrog efterfølgende hans opholdstilladelse,
da klageren var blevet myndig, på grund af mindre alvorlig kriminalitet.
EMD udtalte i præmis 79, at:
I this ega d the Cou t has oted the ge
eral approach of the Borgarting High Court that strong immigration
policy considerations would in principle militate in favour of identifying children with the conduct of their
parents, failing which there would be a great risk that parents exploited the situation of their children in order
to secure a residence permit for themselves and for the children (see paragraph 34 above). The Court, seeing
no reason for disagreeing with this general approach, observes that during a police interview on 15 November
19
the appli a ts othe o eded that she had p e iousl gi e i o e t i fo atio to the poli e a d
othe i stitutio s a out he o a d he hild e s sta i Pakista du i g this pe iod. Thus, it see s that he
hild e s fa il life as eated i
Norway at a time when she was aware that their immigration status in
the country was such that the persistence of that family life would, since their return in 1996, be precarious
(see Nunez, cited above, §§ 71-76). That was also the case of their private life in the country. From the above
considerations, it follows that the removal of the applicants would be incompatible with Article 8 only in
e eptio al i u sta es.
Ved proportionalitetsvurderingen lagde EMD i præmis 76 vægt på, at:
The Court notes from the outset that the first and second applicants arrived in Norway in 1989 at the age of
four and three years, respectively. Apart from an interval of three years and a half from the summer of 1992
Side
82
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0084.png
to early 1996, they have lived there since then. Their mother went into hiding around the turn of the year
2000
–
2001, was expelled in 2005 and died in 2007. Their father remained in Pakistan. During most of their
stay in Norway, the applicants lived at the home of their maternal uncle and aunt (their mother
s othe a d
sister) with family in Oslo, who took care of them. As observed by the High Court in its judgment of 14
November 2008 (see paragraph 35 above) the applicants lived with them until 2005 and must therefore be
presumed to have close emotional links to this part of the family. The Court further finds it established that
the applicants lived with their uncle and aunt for most of the time thereafter. This was also where they had
their friends and social network. They had received the essential part of their education and upbringing in
Norway and mastered the Norwegian language to the full. It is obvious that with time the applicants had
developed a strong personal and social attachment to Norway. The Court sees no reason to doubt that they
both had such family life and private life in Norway as fall within the scope of protection of Article 8 of the
Co e tio . The Go e
e t s suggestio that the p i ate-
and family life interests at stake were only at the
fringes of the Article 8 rights must be
eje ted.
EMD udtalte i præmis 90, at:
I the light of the a o e, the Cou t fi ds that the i u sta es of the p ese t ase e e i deed e eptio al.
It is not satisfied that the authorities of the respondent State acted within their margin of appreciation when
seeking to strike a fair balance between its public interest in ensuring effective immigration control, on the
o e ha d, a d the appli a ts i te ests i e ai i g i No a i o de to pu sue thei p i ate-
and family
life, o the othe ha d.
EMD fandt samlet set, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8.
EMD har også i andre sager inddraget Børnekonventionens artikel 3, såfremt der ifølge EMD forelå helt
særlige omstændigheder i den konkrete sag.
Sagen
Nunez v. Norway (2011)
omhandlede en kvinde, som havde opnået sin opholdstilladelse på baggrund
af svig. Hun havde under sit ophold i medlemsstaten giftet sig og fået børn med en statsborger fra
medlemslandet. De nationale myndigheder traf efterfølgende afgørelse om inddragelse af klagerens
opholdstilladelse og udviste hende med et indrejseforbud gældende i to år.
Om de nationale myndigheders afvejning af hensynet til klagerens egne forhold modsat hensynet til statens
behov for at kontrollere indrejse og ophold udtalte EMD i præmis 72 og 73:
. No does the Cou t see a
easo to disag ee ith the assess e t ade the atio al i
ig atio
authorities and courts (see
pa ag aphs
to
of the Sup e e Cou t s judg e t as to the agg a ated
ha a te of the appli a t s ad i ist ati e offe es u de the I
ig atio A t. I Jul
she had etu ed
to Norway in breach of the two-year-prohibition on re-entry imposed in March 1996. She had given misleading
information about her identity, her previous stay in Norway and her criminal conviction. By having
intentionally done so she had obtained residence and work permits, which were renewed a number of times,
then a settlement permit, none of which she had been entitled to. She had thus lived and worked in the country
unlawfully throughout and the seriousness of her offences does not seem to have diminished with time.
Side
83
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
73. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the pu
li i te est i fa ou of o de i g the appli a t s
expulsion weighed heavily in the balance when assessing the issue of proportionality under Article 8 of the
Co e tio .
Om hensynet til klagerens børn, udtalte EMD i præmis 78:
Ho e e , the Cou t ill e a i e hethe pa ti ula ega d to the hild e s est i te est ould o etheless
upset the fai ala e u de A ti le .
I præmisserne 79 til 81 lagde EMD vægt på, at:
. It is to e oted that f o thei i th i
a d
, espe ti el , u til the Cit Cou t s judg e t of
May 2007 in the custody case, the children had been living permanently with the applicant, who had also
assumed their daily care since her separation from their father in October 2005. Thus, as noted by the
Sup e e Cou t s i o it , the appli a t as the hild e s p i a a e pe so f o thei i th a d u til thei
father was granted custody in 2007. The Court regards it as significant that by virtue of that judgment, which
attached great weight to the decision to expel the applicant (see paragraph 18 above), the children were
moved from her to live with their father, whilst she was granted extended rights of contact with them. As
observed by the Supreme Court minority, together with the father, the applicant was the most important
pe so i the hild e s li es.
80. Also, an equally important consequence of the said judgment of 24May 2007 was that the children, who
had lived all their lives in Norway, would remain in the country in order to live with their father, a settled
immigrant.
81.
Mo eo e , i the assess e t of the Sup e e Cou t s i o it , the hild e had e pe ie ed st ess,
p esu a l due to the isk of thei othe s ei g e pelled as ell as dis uptio i thei a e situatio , fi st
thei pa e ts ei g sepa ated, the
ei g o ed f o thei othe s ho e to that of thei fathe . The
would have difficulty in understanding the reasons were they to be separated from their mother. Pending her
expulsion and the two-year re-entry ban she would probably not return to Norway and it was uncertain
whether they would be able to visit her outside Norway. The Court has taken note that, as observed by the
Sup e e Cou t s ajo it , M
O. stated that, in the event that the applicant were to be expelled, he would
facilitate contacts between the children and her, notably during summer and Christmas holidays. According
to the Sup e e Cou t s ajo it , the e as o easo to assu e that it ould ot e possi le to ai tai
contact between the children and the applicant during the expulsion period. Nevertheless, the Court observes
that, as a result of the decisions taken in the expulsion case and in the custody case, the children would in all
likelihood be separated from their mother practically for two years, a very long period for children of the ages
in question. There is no guarantee that at the end of this period the mother would be able to return. Whether
their separation would be permanent or temporary is in the realm of speculation. In these circumstances, it
could be assu
ed that the hild e e e ul e a le, as held the i o it of the Sup e e Cou t.
EMD udtalte i præmis 84:
Ha i g ega d to all of the a o e o side atio s, ota l the hild e s lo g lasti g a d lose o ds to thei
mother, the decision in the custody proceedings, the disruption and stress that the children had already
experienced and the long period that elapsed before the immigration authorities took their decision to order
Side
84
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0086.png
the appli a t s e pulsio
ith a e-entry
ban, the Court is not convinced in the concrete and exceptional
circumstances of the case that sufficient weight was attached to the best interests of the children for the
purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. Reference is made in this context also to Article 3 of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, according to which the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration
in all actions taken by public authorities concerning children (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC],
no. 41615/07, § 135, ECHR 2010-...). The Court is therefore not satisfied that the authorities of the respondent
State acted within their margin of appreciation when seeking to strike a fair balance between its public
interest in ensuring effective immigration control, on the one hand, and the
appli a t s eed to e a le to
e ai i No a i o de to ai tai he o ta t ith he hild e i thei est i te ests, o the othe ha d.
EMD fandt, at der var sket en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
Der kan endvidere henvises til sagen
Antwi v. Norway (2012),
hvor den ene klager havde opnået
opholdstilladelse på baggrund af urigtige oplysninger om sin nationalitet. Opholdstilladelsen var således
opnået på baggrund af svig. Den anden og den tredje klager var henholdsvis den første klagers ægtefælle og
barn, og de var begge norske statsborgere.
Om hensynet til den tredje klager udtalte EMD i præmisserne 94-104:
.
As to the third applicant, the Court notes that she is a Norwegian national who since birth has spent her
entire life in Norway, is fully integrated into Norwegian society and, according to the material submitted to
the Court, speaks Norwegian with her parents at home. In comparison, her direct links to Ghana are very
limited, having visited the country three times (see paragraph 44 above) and having little knowledge of the
languages practiced there.
95. Furthermore, as a result of the first applicant no longer holding a work permit and staying full-time at
ho e a d of the se o d appli a t s ei g pa ti ula l o upied he o k, the fi st appli a t assu es a
i po ta t ole i the thi d appli a t s dail a e a d up-bringing.
He is the parent who follows up her home-
work and parental contacts with her school and who facilitates her participation in sport activities. She is also
at an age, ten years, when this kind of support would be valuable and she is strongly attached to her father
as she is to her mother.
96. It would most probably be difficult for her to adapt to life in Ghana, were she and her mother to
accompany the father to Ghana, and to readapt to Norwegian life later.
. Agai st this a kg ou d, the Cou t sha es the High Cou t s ie that the i ple e tatio
of the expulsion
order would not be beneficial to her.
. Ho e e , the Cou t sees o easo to all i to dou t the High Cou t s fi di gs to the effe t that, oth
parents having been born and brought up in Ghana and having visited the country three times with their
daughter, there were no insurmountable obstacles in the way of the applicants settling together in Ghana or,
at the least, to ai tai i g egula o ta ts. As to the allegatio that the thi d appli a t s ashes had ee
aggravated by heat during her previous stays in Ghana, the High Court majority found that this had not been
sufficiently documented and could not be relied upon. The minority agreed that the evidence submitted in
support of this contention had been weak and observed that the information appeared to have originated
Side
85
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
from the first and the second applicants. In the proceedings before the Court, the applicants submitted no
further evidence in support of this argument or placed emphasis on it.
99. As also observed by the High Court, it does not emerge that the third applicant had any special care needs
or that her mother would be unable to provide satisfactory care on her own.
100. Moreover, the Court considers that there are certain fundamental differences between the present case
and that of Nunez where it found that the impugned expulsion of an applicant mother would give rise to a
violation of Article 8 of the Convention. In reaching this finding, the Court attached decisive weight to the
exceptional circumstances pertaining to the
appli a t s hild e i that ase, hi h e e e apitulated i the
following terms in its judgment (cited above, § 84):
[…]
[gengivet ovenfor, udeladt her, red.]
101. Unlike what had been the situation of the children of Mrs Nunez, the third applicant had not been made
vulnerable by previous disruptions and distress in her care situation (compare Nunez, cited above, §§ 79 to
81).
. Also, the du atio of the i
ig atio autho ities p o essi g of the atte as ot so lo g as to gi e
reason to question whether the impugned measure fulfilled the interests of swiftness and efficiency of
immigration control that was the intended purpose of such administrative measures (compare Nunez, cited
above, § 82). On the contrary, in October 2005, only a few months afte
the dis o e of the fi st appli a t s
fraud in July 2005, he was put on notice that he might be expelled from Norway. In May 2006 the Directorate
ordered his expulsion and prohibition on re-entry and gave him until 24 July 2006 to leave the country.
103. There being no exceptional circumstances at issue in the present case, the Court is satisfied that sufficient
eight as atta hed to the est i te ests of the hild i o de i g the fi st appli a t s e pulsio .
104. The above considerations are not altered by the duration of the prohibition on re-entry
–
five years. In
this connection, the Court reiterates that in a comparable case, Darren Omoregie (cited above, §§ 63-68), it
found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention with respect to an expulsion order with a re-entry ban of the
same duration imposed on the applicant father in that case in reaction to offences against the immigration
rules involving unlawful stay and work in the country. The offences committed by the first applicant in the
present case, obtaining a residence permit on the basis of incorrect and misleading information about his
ide tit a d atio alit suppo ted a fo ged passpo t, e e of a o e se ious atu e. I the Cou t s ie , it
is clear that the corresponding public interest in the administrative sanction imposed on him cannot have
been less than that which was at issue in the afore-
e tio ed ase.
Om de nationale myndigheders afvejning udtalte EMD i præmis 105:
I light of the a o e, the Cou t does ot fi d that the ational
authorities of the respondent State acted
arbitrarily or otherwise transgressed the margin of appreciation which should be accorded to it in this area
when seeking to strike a fair balance between its public interest in ensuring effective immigration control, on
the o e ha d, a d the appli a ts eed that the fi st appli a t e a le to e ai i No a , o the othe
ha d.
EMD fandt på den baggrund, at udvisningen af den første klager med et femårigt indrejseforbud ikke
udgjorde en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
Side
86
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0088.png
6.1.3.4. Ulovligt ophold
Sagen
Jeunesse v. the Netherlands (2014)
omhandlede en kvinde, som indrejste i medfør af et visum for at
besøge en slægtning i opholdslandet. Hun giftede sig efterfølgende med en statsborger fra opholdslandet,
og de fik sammen tre børn. Klageren søgte flere gange om opholdstilladelse, men fik afslag på dette, idet hun
ikke havde indgivet ansøgningerne om opholdstilladelse fra sit hjemland. Klageren blev 16 år efter sin
indrejse tilbageholdt med henblik på udsendelse til sit hjemland. EMD henviste i sagen bl.a. til
Børnekonventionens artikel 3, stk. 1.
I præmis 74 udtalte EMD:
I its Ge e al Co
e t No.
o I ple e ti g hild ights i ea l hildhood, the Co
ittee o the
Rights of the Child
–
the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the CRC by its State
Parties
–
wished to encourage recognition by States Parties that young children are holders of all rights
enshrined in the said Convention and that early childhood is a critical period for the realisation of these rights.
The best interests of the child are examined, in particular, in section 13, which provides as follows:
13. Best interests of the child. Article 3 [of the CRC] sets out the principle that the best interests of the child
are a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. By virtue of their relative immaturity, young
children are reliant on responsible authorities to assess and represent their rights and best interests in relation
to decisions and actions that affect their well-being, while taking account of their views and evolving
capacities. The principle of best interests appears repeatedly within the Convention (including in articles 9,
18, 20 and 21, which are most relevant to early childhood). The principle of best interests applies to all actions
concerning children and requires active measures to protect their rights and promote their survival, growth,
and well-being, as well as measures to support and assist parents and others who have day-to-day
espo si ilit fo ealizi g hild e s ights:
(a) Best interests of individual children. All decision-maki
g o e i g a hild s a e, health, edu atio , et .
must take account of the best interests principle, including decisions by parents, professionals and others
responsible for children.
States parties are urged to make provisions for young children to be represented independently in all legal
p o eedi gs so eo e ho a ts fo the hild s i te ests, a d fo hild e to e hea d i all ases he e the
are capable of expressing their opinions or preferences;
[…]
Om hensynet til
a ets ta
udtalte EMD i præmis 109:
Whe e hild e a e i ol ed, thei est i te ests ust e take i to a ou t see Tu ua o-Tekle
and Others
v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, § 44, 1 December 2005; mutatis mutandis, Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07
and 39474/07, §§ 139-140, 19 January 2012; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, cited above, § 135; and X
v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 96, ECHR 2013). On this particular point, the Court reiterates that there is a
broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning children,
their best interests are of paramount importance (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, cited above, §
135, and X v. Latvia, cited above, § 96). Whilst alone they cannot be decisive, such interests certainly must be
afforded significant weight. Accordingly, national decision-making bodies should, in principle, advert to and
assess evidence in respect of the practicality, feasibility and proportionality of any removal of a non-national
Side
87
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
parent in order to give effective protection and sufficient weight to the best interests of the children directly
affe ted it.
I præmisserne 115 til 119 lagde EMD vægt på følgende forhold med hensyn til
a ets ta
:
. The Cou t fi st a d fo e ost takes i to o side atio the fa t that all e e s of the appli a t s fa il
ith the e eptio of he self a e Nethe la ds atio als a d that the appli a t s spouse a d thei th ee
children have a right to enjoy their family life with each other in the Netherlands. The Court further notes that
the applicant held Netherlands nationality at birth. She subsequently lost her nationality when Suriname
became independent. She then became a Surinamese national, not by her own choice but pursuant to Article
3 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Suriname concerning the
assignment of nationality (see paragraph 62 above). Consequently, her position cannot be simply considered
to be on a par with that of other potential immigrants who have never held Netherlands nationality.
116. The Court considers that a second important feature of the instant case is the fact that the applicant has
been in the Netherlands for more than sixteen years and that she has no criminal record. Although she failed
to comply with the obligation to leave the Netherlands, her presence was nevertheless tolerated for a
considerable period of time by the Netherlands authorities, while she repeatedly submitted residence requests
and awaited the outcome of appeals. The tolerance of her presence for such a lengthy period of time, during
which for a large part it was open to the authorities to remove her, in effect enabled the applicant to establish
and develop strong family, social and cultural ties in the Netherlands. The applicant
s add ess, he e she has
been living for the last fifteen years, has always been known to the Netherlands authorities.
117. Thirdly, the Court accepts, given the common background of the applicant and her husband and the
relatively young age of their children, that there would appear to be no insurmountable obstacles for them to
settle in Suriname. However, it is likely that the applicant and her family would experience a degree of
hardship if they were forced to do so. When assessing the compliance of State authorities with their
obligations under Article 8, it is necessary to take due account of the situation of all members of the family,
as this provision guarantees protection to the whole family.
118. The Court fourthly considers that the impact of the
Nethe la ds autho ities de isio o the appli a t s
three children is another important feature of this case. The Court observes that the best interests of the
appli a t s hild e ust e take i to a ou t i this ala i g e e ise see a o e §
. On
this particular
point, the Court reiterates that there is a broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the
idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests are of paramount importance (see Neulinger
and Shuruk v. Switzerland, cited above, § 135, and X v. Latvia, cited above, § 96). Whilst alone they cannot be
decisive, such interests certainly must be afforded significant weight. For that purpose, in cases concerning
family reunification, the Court pays particular attention to the circumstances of the minor children concerned,
especially their age, their situation in the country or countries concerned and the extent to which they are
dependent on their parents (see Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 44).
119. Noting that the applicant takes care of the children on a daily basis, it is obvious that their interests are
best served by not disrupting their present circumstances by a forced relocation of their mother from the
Netherlands to Suriname or by a rupturing of their relationship with her as a result of future separation. In
this o e tio , the Cou t o se es that the appli a t s hus a d p o ides fo the fa il
o ki g full-time
Side
88
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0090.png
in a job that includes shift work. He is, consequently, absent from the home on some evenings. The applicant
–
being the mother and homemaker
–
is the primary and constant carer of the children who are deeply rooted
in the Netherlands of which country
–
like their father
–
they are nationals. The materials in the case file do
ot dis lose a di e t li k et ee the appli a t s hild e a d Su i a e, a ou t
he e the ha e e e
ee .
I præmis 120 udtalte EMD, at:
I e a i i g hethe the e e e i su ou ta le o sta les fo the appli a t a d he fa il to settle
in
Su i a e, the do esti autho ities had so e ega d fo the situatio of the appli a t s hild e see
paragraphs 23 (under 2.19 and 2.21), 28 and 34 (under 2.4.5) above). However, the Court considers that they
fell short of what is required in such cases and it reiterates that national decision-making bodies should, in
principle, advert to and assess evidence in respect of the practicality, feasibility and proportionality of any
such removal in order to give effective protection and sufficient weight to the best interests of the children
directly affected by it (see above § 109). The Court is not convinced that actual evidence on such matters was
considered and assessed by the domestic authorities. Accordingly, it must conclude that insufficient weight
as gi e to the est i te ests of the appli a t s hild e i the de isio of the do esti autho ities to efuse
the appli a t s e uest fo a eside e pe it.
I præmis 122 udtalte EMD endvidere, at:
The Cou t, hilst o fi i g the ele a t p i iples
set out above (see paragraphs 106-109), finds that, on
the basis of the above considerations (see paragraphs 115-120) and viewing the relevant factors cumulatively,
the i u sta es of the appli a t s ase ust e ega ded as e eptio al. A o di gl , the
Court concludes
that a fair balance has not been struck between the competing interests involved. There has thus been a
failu e the Nethe la ds autho ities to se u e the appli a t s ight to espe t fo he fa il life as p ote ted
by Article 8 of the
Co e tio .
EMD fandt derefter, at der var sket en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 8.
6.1.3.5. Inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald, hvor ingen kriminalitet
Det ses ikke, at EMD i sin praksis eksplicit har anvendt Børnekonventionen i sager omhandlende inddragelse,
nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald, hvor klageren ikke har begået kriminalitet. EMD har dog i enkelte
domme lagt vægt på, hvilken betydning det måtte have for klagerens børn, såfremt klageren måtte blive
udvist.
I sagen
Berrehab v. the Netherlands (1988)
opnåede klageren en opholdstilladelse på baggrund af ægteskab
med en hollandsk statsborger. Parret fik en datter. Da klageren efterfølgende blev skilt fra sin ægtefælle,
nægtede de nationale myndigheder at forlænge hans opholdstilladelse, da denne var betinget af et
bestående ægteskab. Klageren havde opholdt sig i hjemlandet de første 25 år af sit liv og havde derefter
opholdt sig år i opholdsla det. Klagere s datter ar på tidspu ktet for EMD s afgørelse i år ga
el.
EMD udtalte i præmis 29, at:
Ha i g to as e tai hethe this latte o ditio as satisfied i the i sta t ase, the Cou t o se es, fi stl ,
that its fu tio is ot to pass judg e t o the Nethe la ds i
ig atio a d eside e poli as su h. It has
Side
89
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0091.png
only to examine the interferences complained of, and it must do this not solely from the point of view of
i
ig atio a d eside e, ut also ith ega d to the appli a ts utual i te est i o ti ui g thei
relations. As the Netherlands Court of Cassation also noted (see paragraph 16 above), the legitimate aim
pu sued has to e eighed agai st the se ious ess of the i te fe e e ith the appli a ts ight to espe t fo
their family life. As to the aim pursued, it must be emphasised that the instant case did not concern an alien
seeking admission to the Netherlands for the first time but a person who had already lawfully lived there for
several years, who had a home and a job there, and against whom the Government did not claim to have any
complaint. Furthermore, Mr. Berrehab already had real family ties there - he had married a Dutch woman,
and a child had been born of the marriage. As to the extent of the interference, it is to be noted that there
had been very close ties between Mr. Berrehab and his daughter for several years (see paragraphs 9 and 21
above) and that the refusal of an independent residence permit and the ensuing expulsion threatened to break
those ties. That effect of the interferences in issue was the more serious as Rebecca needed to remain in
contact with her father, seeing especially that she was very young. Having regard to these particular
circumstances, the Court considers that a proper balance was not achieved between the interests involved
and that there was therefore a disproportion between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued.
That being so, the Court cannot consider the disputed measures as being necessary in a democratic society.
It thus o ludes that the e as a iolatio of A ti le a t. .
6.1.3.6. Familiesammenføring til personer, som har lovligt ophold
Det ses ikke, at EMD eksplicit har inddraget Børnekonventionens bestemmelser i sager omhandlende
familiesammenføring.
6.2.
Handicapkonventionen
FN s ko e tio o rettigheder for perso er ed ha di ap
Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities
–
herefter betegnet Handicapkonventionen) af 13. december 2006 trådte i kraft den 3. maj 2008.
Danmark ratificerede konventionen den 24. juli 2009 i henhold til kgl. resolution af den 13. juli 2009 efter
samtykke fra Folketinget den 28. maj 2009, hvorefter konventionen trådte i kraft for Danmark den 23. august
2009.
FN´s komité om rettigheder for personer med handicap
(the Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilitites
–
herefter Handicapkomitéen) blev oprettet i henhold til konventionens artikel 34. Komitéen
består af 18 uafhængige eksperter fra medlemslandene. Komitéen overvåger medlemsstaternes
implementering af nationale tiltag, der realiserer konventionens forpligtelser. De deltagende stater skal
afgive beretninger til komitéen om de foranstaltninger, de træffer for at gennemføre deres forpligtelser i
henhold til konventionen.
Den 23. september 2014 tiltrådte Danmark ligeledes tillægsprotokollen til konventionen.
I sager omhandlende inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald af opholdstilladelser anses artikel 5
for at være mest relevant.
6.2.1. Relevante artikler i Handicapkonventionen
6.2.1.1. Handicapkonventionens artikel 1
– ”For ål”
Side
90
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0092.png
Konventionens artikel 1 omhandler formålet med konventionens bestemmelser.
Den engelske ordlyd
er som følger:
Article 1 - Purpose
The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their
inherent dignity.
Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory
impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in
society on an equal basis with
othe s.
Den danske ordlyd er jf.
Bekendtgørelse af FN-konvention af 13. december 2006 om rettigheder for personer
med handicap
som følger:
A tikel –
Formål
Formålet med denne konvention er at fremme, beskytte og sikre muligheden for, at alle personer med
handicap fuldt ud kan nyde alle menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder på lige fod med
andre, samt at fremme respekten for deres naturlige værdighed.
Personer med handicap omfatter personer, der har en langvarig fysisk, psykisk, intellektuel eller sensorisk
funktionsnedsættelse, som i samspil med forskellige barrierer kan hindre dem i fuldt og effektivt at deltage i
sa fu dsli et på lige fod ed a d e.
Handicapkomitéen har ikke udgivet en
General comment
om artikel 1, som kan anvendes til fortolkning af
indholdet.
6.2.1.2. Handicapkonventionens artikel 5
– ”Lighed og ikke-diskri i atio ”
Konventionens artikel 5 omhandler retten til lighed og ikke-diskrimination for personer med handicap.
Den engelske ordlyd
er som følger:
A ti le –
Equality and non-discrimination
1. States Parties recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
2. States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with
disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.
3. In order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination, States Parties shall take all appropriate steps to
ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided.
4. Specific measures which are necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto equality of persons with disabilities
shall ot e o side ed dis i i atio u de the te s of the p ese t Co e tio .
Side
91
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0093.png
Den danske ordlyd er jf.
Bekendtgørelse af FN-konvention af 13. december 2006 om rettigheder for personer
med handicap
som følger:
Lighed og ikke-diskrimination
1. Deltagerstaterne anerkender, at alle er lige for loven, og at alle uden nogen form for diskrimination har ret
til lige beskyttelse og til at drage samme nytte af loven.
2. Deltagerstaterne skal forbyde enhver diskrimination på grund af handicap og skal sikre personer med
handicap lige og effektiv retlig beskyttelse imod diskrimination af enhver grund.
3. Med henblik på at fremme lighed og afskaffe diskrimination skal deltagerstaterne tage alle passende skridt
til at sikre, at der tilvejebringes rimelig tilpasning.
4. Særlige foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at fremskynde eller opnå reel lighed for personer med
ha di ap, a ses ikke fo disk i i atio i he hold til de e ko e tio .
Handicapkomitéen har som hjælp til fortolkning af konventionens artikel 5 udgivet
General comment No. 6
(2018)
om principperne om lighed og ikke-diskrimination.
Af punkt 5 fremgår det, at:
E ualit a d o
-discrimination are at the core of all human rights treaties. The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights prohibit
discrimination on an open list of grounds, from which article 5 of the Convention originated. All of the thematic
United Nations human rights conventions aim to establish equality and eliminate discrimination, and contain
provisions on equality and non-discrimination. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has
taken into account the experiences offered by the other conventions, and its equality and non-discrimination
p i iples ep ese t the e olutio of the U ited Natio s t aditio a d app oa h.
Om det legale grundlag for ikke-diskrimination og lighed fremgår det af punkt 12, at:
E ualit a d o
-discrimination are principles and rights. The Convention refers to them in article 3 as
principles and in article 5 as rights. They are also an interpretative tool for all the other principles and rights
enshrined in the Convention. The principles/rights of equality and non-discrimination are a cornerstone of the
international protection guaranteed by the Convention. Promoting equality and tackling discrimination are
cross-cutting obligations of immediate realization.
The a e ot su je t to p og essi e ealizatio .
I
General comment No. 6 (2018)
oplistes fire typer af overordnede former for diskrimination. I punkt 18 er
disse beskrevet som:
The dut to p ohi it all dis i i atio i ludes all fo s of dis i i atio . I te atio al hu a
practice identifies four main forms of discrimination, which can occur individually or simultaneously:
ights
a Di e t dis i i atio o u s he , i a si ila situatio , persons
with disabilities are treated less
favourably than other persons because of a different personal status in a similar situation for a reason related
to a prohibited ground. Direct discrimination includes detrimental acts or omissions based on prohibited
grounds where there is no comparable similar situation. The motive or intention of the discriminating party is
Side
92
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
not relevant to a determination of whether discrimination has occurred. For example, a State school that
refuses to admit a child with disabilities in order not to change the scholastic programmes does so just because
of his or her disability and is an example of direct discrimination;
I di e t dis i i atio
ea s that la s, poli ies o p a ti es appea eut al at fa e alue ut ha e a
disproportionate negative impact on a person with a disability. It occurs when an opportunity that appears
accessible in reality excludes certain persons owing to the fact that their status does not allow them to benefit
from the opportunity itself. For example, if a school does not provide books in Easy-Read format, it would
indirectly discriminate against persons with intellectual disabilities, who, although technically allowed to
attend the school, would in fact need to attend another. Similarly, if a candidate with restricted mobility had
a job interview on a second floor office in a building without an elevator, although allowed to sit the interview,
the situation puts him/her in an unequal position;
De ial of easo a le a o
odatio , a o di g to a ti le of the Co e tio , o stitutes dis i i atio
if the e essa a d app op iate odifi atio a d adjust e ts that do ot i pose a disp opo tio ate o
u due u de a e de ied a d a e eeded
to ensure the equal enjoyment or exercise of a human right or
fundamental freedom. Not accepting an accompanying person or refusing to otherwise accommodate a
person with a disability are examples of denial of reasonable accommodation;
d Ha ass e t is
a form of discrimination when unwanted conduct related to disability or other prohibited
grounds takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It can happen through actions or
words that have the effect of perpetuating the difference and oppression of persons with disabilities.
Particular attention should be paid to persons with disabilities living in segregated places, such as residential
institutions, special schools or psychiatric hospitals, where this type of discrimination is more likely to occur
a d is
atu e i isi le, a d so ot likel to e pu ished. Bull i g a d its o li e fo ,
e ull i g a d
cyberhate, also constitute particularly violent and harmful forms of hate crimes. Other examples include
(disability-based) violence in all its appearances, such as rape, abuse and exploitation, hate-crime and
eati gs.
Endvidere fremgår det af punkt 19, at:
Dis i i atio a e
based on a single characteristic, such as disability or gender, or on multiple and/or
i te se ti g ha a te isti s. I te se tio al dis i i atio o u s he a pe so
ith a disa ilit o
associated to disability suffers discrimination of any form on the basis of disability, combined with, colour,
sex, language, religion, ethnic, gender or other status. Intersectional discrimination can appear as direct or
indirect discrimination, denial of reasonable accommodation or harassment. For example, while the denial of
access to general health-related information due to inaccessible format affects all persons on the basis of
disability, the denial to a blind woman of access to family planning services restricts her rights based on the
intersection of her gender and disability. In many cases, it is difficult to separate these grounds. States parties
ust add ess ultiple a d i te se tio al dis i i atio agai st pe so s ith disa ilities. Multiple
dis i i atio a o di g to the Co
ittee is a situatio
he e a
person can experience discrimination on
two or several grounds, in the sense that discrimination is compounded or aggravated. Intersectional
discrimination refers to a situation where several grounds operate and interact with each other at the same
Side
93
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0095.png
time in such a way that they are inseparable and thereby expose relevant individuals to unique types of
disad a tage a d dis i i atio .
Om staternes forpligtelser i henhold til Handicapkonventionen fremgår det af punkt 30, at:
States pa ties ha e a o ligatio
to respect, protect and fulfil the right of all persons with disabilities to non-
discrimination and equality. In that regard, States parties must refrain from any action that discriminates
agai st pe so s ith disa ilities. […]
6.2.2. Udtalelser fra Handicapkomitéen
6.2.2.1. Handicapkonventionens artikel 5
Det ses ikke, at Handicapkomitéen har behandlet klager omhandlende krænkelse af artikel 5 i forbindelse
med inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse eller bortfald af opholdstilladelser.
Handicapkomitéen har i sagen
Iuliia Domina and Max Bendtsen v. Denmark, communication No. 39/2017
(2018)
behandlet en klage over afslag på familiesammenføring.
Klagerne anførte, at afslaget på familiesammenføringen var diskriminerende i henhold til
Handicapkonventionens artikel 5 sammenholdt med artikel 23. Klagerne var et ægtepar, hvoraf manden var
statsborger i Danmark. Den kvindelige klager søgte om familiesammenføring til sin ægtefælle, hvilket blev
afslået af de nationale myndigheder. Den mandlige klager var fire år forinden blevet tilkendt invalidepension
som følge af en permanent hjerneskade. De nationale myndigheder afslog ansøgningen om
familiesammenføring på grund af, at den mandlige klager ikke opfyldte betingelsen i den nationale lovgivning
om, at han ikke forud for ansøgningen måtte have modtaget sociale ydelser i en periode på tre år. Afgørelsen
blev sidenhen stadfæstet af Udlændingenævnet, som var klageinstans, omgjort af Vestre Landsret og
stadfæstet igen af Højesteret. Afgørelsen fra Højesteret blev derefter påklaget til Handicapkomitéen.
Komiteen udtalte om diskrimination på baggrund af et handicap i punkt 8.3, at:
The Co
ittee e alls that u de a ti le of the Co e tio , dis i i atio o the asis of disa ilit is
defined as any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field, and
includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation. The Committee further
recalls that a law that is applied in a neutral manner may have a discriminatory effect when the particular
circumstances of the individuals to whom it is applied are not taken into consideration. The right not to be
discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention can be violated when
States, without objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are
significantly different. The Committee recalls that in cases of indirect discrimination, laws, policies or practices
that appear neutral at face value have a disproportionately negative impact on persons with disabilities.
Indirect discrimination occurs when an opportunity that appears accessible in reality excludes certain persons
owing to the fact that their status does not allow them to benefit from the opportunity itself. The Committee
notes that treatment is indirectly discriminatory if the detrimental effects of a rule or decision exclusively or
disproportionately affect persons of a particular race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
Side
94
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Being a person with a disability falls within
such categories. The Committee further observes that under article 5 (1) and (2) of the Convention, States
parties have obligations to recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled
without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and to prohibit all
discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal
p ote tio agai st dis i i atio o all g ou ds.
I punkt 8.5 udtalte komiteen, at:
I the p ese t ase, the Co
ittee otes that at the ti e of the autho s appli atio fo fa il eu ifi atio
Mr. Bendtsen was receiving social benefits on the basis of his disability and he was not in a position to take
up employment. The Committee
otes that the do esti autho ities eje ted the autho s appli atio fo
family reunification as they concluded that Mr. Bendtsen had a reasonable prospect of satisfying the
requirement of self-support under section 9 (5) of the Aliens Act because of his possibility of finding a job
under the wage subsidy programme. It also notes, however, that when the authors made their application for
family reunification, Mr. Bendtsen had not yet qualified for the wage subsidy programme and could therefore
not fulfil the requirement under section 9 (5) for family reunification under the Aliens Act. It further notes that
at that point in time, family reunification was already a priority for the authors and their son. The Committee
further notes that the assessment as to whether Mr. Bendtsen could qualify for employment under the wage
subsidy programme was not finalized until March 2015 and that he was not employed under the programme
until October 2015, six years after he had first started to receive social benefits under the Active Social Policy
Act, and two and a half years after the authors had filed their application for family reunification. The
Co
ittee fu the otes the autho s u disputed lai that i o de to fulfil the e ui e e t u de se tio
(5) of the Aliens Act once Mr. Bendtsen had qualified for the wage subsidy programme in October 2015, they
would have faced an additional waiting period of three years before they would have been eligible for family
reunification under the Act. The Committee therefore concludes that in the present case the requirement of
self-support under section 9 (5) of the Aliens Act disproportionally affected Mr. Bendtsen as a person with a
disability and resulted in him being subjected to indirectl
dis i i ato t eat e t.
Komitéen konkluderede i punkt 8.6, at:
The Co
ittee the efo e fi ds that the fa t that the ele a t do esti autho ities eje ted the autho s
application for family reunification on the basis of criteria that were indirectly discriminatory against persons
ith disa ilities had the effe t of i pai i g o ullif i g the autho s e jo e t a d e e ise of the ight to
family life on an equal basis with others, in violation of their rights under article 5 (1) and (2) read alone and
in conjunction with article
of the Co e tio .
6.2.3. Anvendelse af Handicapkonventionen i praksis ved EMD
Det ses ikke at EMD har anvendt Handicapkonventionen i praksis i sager omhandlende udsendelse af
udlændinge på baggrund af kriminalitet, svig, ulovligt ophold eller familiesammenføring eller nægtelse af
forlængelse, inddragelse eller bortfald af en meddelt opholdstilladelse.
6.3.
Konventionen om borgerlige og politiske rettigheder
Side
95
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0097.png
FN s ko e tio o
orgerlige og politiske rettigheder
The International
Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
- herefter betegnet CCPR) af 16. december 1966 blev ratificeret af Danmark i 1972. Konventionen
trådte i kraft for Danmark den 23. marts 1976.
Menneskerettighedskomitéen (UN
s Hu a Rights Co
ittee)
blev oprettet i henhold til konventionens
artikel 28 og består af 18 medlemmer, som vælges af de stater, som har tiltrådt konventionen.
Komitéen overvåger medlemsstaternes implementering af nationale tiltag, som har til formål at realisere
konventionens forpligtelser. De deltagende stater skal afgive beretning til komitéen om de foranstaltninger,
de træffer for at gennemføre deres forpligtelser ifølge konventionen.
Danmark ratificerede på samme tidspunkt som konventionen den frivillige tillægsprotokol, hvorved Danmark
anerkendte, at Menneskerettighedskomitéen har kompetence til at behandle klager fra enkeltpersoner, som
hævder at være ofre for en krænkelse fra den pågældendes deltagerstats side
–
den såkaldte individuelle
klageadgang, jf. tillægsprotokollens artikel 1. Tillægsprotokollen trådte i kraft den 23. marts 1976. Komitéens
udtalelser er ikke retligt bindende for den indklagede stat.
Menneskerettighedskomitéen kan behandle tre typer af sager omhandlende CCPR:
o
u i atio s ,
state-to-state complaints
og
inquiries
.
i di idual
I sager omhandlende inddragelse, nægtelse af forlængelse og bortfald af opholdstilladelser er artikel 17 mest
relevant.
6.3.1. Relevante artikler i CCPR
6.3.1.1. CCPR artikel 17
– ”for ud
Ordlyden i CCPR artikel 17
er:
. No o e shall e su je ted to a it a o u la ful i te fe e e
correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
ith
his privacy, family, home or
od vilkårlig eller ulovlig i d la di g i privat- og fa ilieliv”
. E e o e has the ight to the p ote tio of the la agai st su h i te fe e e o atta ks.
Den officielle danske oversættelse er jf.
Beke dtgø else af i te atio al ko e tio af . de e
o
o ge lige og politiske ettighede ed tilhø e de algf i p otokol
af 29. marts 1976:
Artikel 17
1. Ingen må udsættes for vilkårlig eller ulovlig indblanding i sit privatliv eller familieliv, sit hjem eller sin
brevveksling, eller for ulovlige angreb på sin ære og sit omdømme.
2. Enhver har ret til lovens beskyttelse mod sådan indblanding eller sådanne angreb.
Menneskerettighedskomitéen har udgivet
General comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to privacy)
om
indholdet i artikel 17.
Af punkt 1 fremgår, at:
e
Side
96
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0098.png
A ti le
p o ides fo the ight of e e pe so to e p ote ted agai st a it a o u la ful i te fe e e
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence as well as against unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation. In the view of the Committee this right is required to be guaranteed against all such interferences
and attacks whether they emanate from State authorities or from natural or legal persons. The obligations
imposed by this article require the State to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the
p ohi itio agai st su h i te fe e es a d atta ks as ell as to the p ote tio of this ight.
Under punkt 3 uddyber komitéen, at
The te
unlawful means that no interference can take place except in cases envisaged by the law.
Interference authorized by States can only take place on the basis of law, which itself must comply with the
provisions, aims and objecti
es of the Co e a t.
Under punkt 4 uddyber komitéen, at
The e p essio
arbitrary interference is also relevant to the protection of the right provided for in article 17.
I the Co
ittee s ie the e p essio
arbitrary interference can also extend to interference provided for
under the law. The introduction of the concept of arbitrariness is intended to guarantee that even interference
provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and
should be,
i a e e t, easo a le i the pa ti ula i u sta es.
Under punkt 5 uddyber komitéen, at
Rega di g the te
family , the objectives of the covenant require that for purposes of article 17 this term
be given a broad interpretation to include all those comprising the family as understood in the society of the
State party concerned.
[…]
Menneskerettighedskomitéen har endvidere udgivet
General Comment No. 15: The position of aliens under
the Covenant
af 11. april 1986.
Det fremgår af punkt 4, at:
The Co e a t gi es alie s all the p ote tio ega di g ights gua a teed the ei , a d its e ui e e ts should
be observed by States parties in their legislation and in practice as appropriate.
[…]
States parties should
ensure that the provisions of the Covenant and the rights under it are made known to aliens within their
ju isdi tio .
Af punkt 5 fremgår det, at:
The Co e a t does ot e og ize the ight of alie s to e te o eside i the te itory
of a State party. It is in
principle a matter for the State to decide who it will admit to its territory. However, in certain circumstances
an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant even in relation to entry or residence, for example, when
considerations of non-dis
i i atio , p ohi itio of i hu a t eat e t a d espe t fo fa il life a ise.
Vedrørende de i CCPR artikel 17 beskyttede rettigheder fremgår det af punkt 7, at:
The [alie s, ed.] a
o o espo de e.
ot e su je ted to a it a o u la ful i terference
with their privacy, family, home
Side
97
af
98
 UUI, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 146: Notat om beskyttelse af udlændinges privat- og familieliv efter EMRK og FN's konventioner, fra udlændinge- og integrationsministeren
2222709_0099.png
6.3.2. Udtalelser fra Menneskerettighedskomitéen
6.3.2.1. CCPR artikel 17
Praksis fra Menneskerettighedskomitéen vedrørende artikel 17 kan findes på Flygtningenævnets
hjemmeside,
www.fln.dk,
under Publikationer og notater/Notater/CCPR artikel 17 mm.
6.3.3. Anvendelse af CCPR i praksis ved EMD
Det ses ikke, at EMD har inddraget CCPR artikel 17 om forbud mod vilkårlig og ulovlig indblanding i privat- og
familieliv i sager vedrørende medlemsstaternes udsendelse af udlændinge.
7. Litteraturliste
Cou il of Europe: Guide o Arti le of the Europea Co e tio o Hu a Rights
Right to respect
for private and family life, home and correspondence
, . de e er
Kjøl ro, Jo Fridrik: De Europæiske e eskerettighedsko e tio for praktikere . udga e.
Jurist- og økonomforbundets forlag, 2017
Cou il of Europe hu a rights ha d ooks Prote ti g the right to respect
for private and family
life
, I a a Roag a
Side
98
af
98