European Court of Human Rights
18 October 2006
Facts:
The applicant, Mr. Üner, born in Turkey, moved to the Netherlands in 1981 at age 12. He lived there for many years, earning a permanent residence permit and building a settled family life by marrying a Dutch national and raising 2 children, both Dutch citizens. After he was convicted multiple times for violent offences, including manslaughter, Dutch authorities withdrew his residence permit and issued a 10-year exclusion order from the Netherlands. He was deported to Turkey in February 1998, returned illegally, and was deported again in June 1998. This separated Mr. Üner from his partner and children, who were Dutch citizens and unlikely to relocate to Turkey with him.
Complaint:
The applicant argued that his expulsion and exclusion order violated his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Court’s ruling:
The Court reaffirmed that the expulsion of settled migrants, lawfully residing in a host country for many years, may raise issues under Article 8 when it affects their family life. The key consideration was whether a fair balance was struck between the individual's right to family life and the State's interest in maintaining public order. In assessing whether the state overstepped its margin of appreciation, the Court considered multiple factors: the gravity of the crime, the length of the applicant’s residence in the Netherlands, his family and private life, particularly with his children, the best interests and adaptability of the children, and his ongoing ties to Turkey, his country of origin.
Applying these criteria, the Court noted that Mr. Üner had lived in the Netherlands from a young age, had formed a genuine family with Dutch nationals, and had not committed any further offences after his release. However, the seriousness of his crimes, particularly the conviction for manslaughter, and the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime were decisive. The Court also observed that his partner and children could potentially join him in Turkey.
The Court concluded that the exclusion order struck a fair balance between the applicant’s family life and the state’s interest in protecting public order, and that the exclusion was a proportionate response to the applicant’s conduct and fell within the state’s margin of appreciation. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8.