Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
25.04.2017
Facts
The applicant Mr Krasniqi, Kosovo national, entered Austria for the first time in 1994. He was arrested for working illegally and imposed a residence ban, he left after an unsuccesful asylum claim. In 1998 the applicant returned to Austria and lodged a fresh asylum claim, together with his wife and their daughter. The asylum claim was dismissed, but the applicant and his family were granted subsidiary protection. They received a temporary residence permit, which was extended several times. The applicant was criminally convicted nine times, for different offences, such as causing bodily harm and aggravated burglary. As a consequence of his criminal convictions, he was issued with a ban prohibiting his return to Austria, which was valid for ten years, and his subsidiary protection status was withdrawn. The applicant was expelled to Kosovo, his family decided to remain in Austria.
Complaint
The applicant alleged that his expulsion to Kosovo had violated his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8.
Court’s ruling
The Court first assessed the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s criminal offences and agreed with the Government that the applicant’s persistent offending demonstrated his indifferent attitude towards the Austrian legal order. The Court noted that applicant has very strong family ties in Austria, he was well integrated and spoke German very well. Regarding any difficulties likely to be encountered by the applicant and his family upon returning to Kosovo, the Court found it safe to assume that the applicant and his wife still have certain social, cultural and linguistic ties with the country. In his interview the applicant explicitly stated that his wife and children would not have to fear any problems upon returning to Kosovo. The Court considered that the authorities could therefore reasonably assume that the family would be able to stay together. The fact that the applicant’s wife and children ultimately decided to remain in Austria does not change this assessment. Taking everything into account, the Court concluded that there was no violation of Article 8.