Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25918/94

by Aliriza ALTUNTAS

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 December 1994

by Aliriza ALTUNTAS against Austria and registered on 13 December 1994

under file No. 25918/94;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1977 in

Lustenau/Austria and was living in Austria when he lodged the present

application. He is represented by Mr. W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising

in Bregenz.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The facts, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

In September 1992 the applicant travelled to Austria with his

father.

On 24 February 1993 his request for a visa (Sichtvermerk) was

rejected.

On the same day the competent authorities

(Bezirkshauptmannschaft) at Dornbirn issued an expulsion order against

the applicant in accordance with Section 17 para. 1 of the Aliens Act

(Fremdengesetz) which provides for the expulsion of aliens unlawfully

within the territory of the state. The applicant was informed about

his right to lodge an appeal which would however not have suspensive

effect ex officio.

It is stated in the expulsion order that the applicant's mother

and his five sisters/brothers were living in Turkey. Only his father

was authorised to live in Austria where he had a job. When applying

for a visa for the applicant his father however had not advanced any

arguments justifying the granting of a residence permit in accordance

with Section 19 of the Aliens Act. As he had only been living for

about five months in Austria and as the rest of his family was living

in Turkey it could not be considered that he was integrated into

Austria and that his ties to Austria were stronger than those to

Turkey.

The applicant's appeal (Berufung) against the decision of

24 February 1993 was rejected by the Directorate of the Security

Service of Vorarlberg (Sicherheitsdirektion) on 29 September 1993 after

having granted suspensive effect to the appeal. This decision was

mainly based on the fact that the applicant had entered the territory

of Austria without a visa and that the main part of his family lived

in Turkey.

The applicant then brought a complaint with the Administrative

Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) which rejected it on 14 April 1994.

Insofar as the applicant had argued that an expulsion order could

only be given within a time-limit of one month after the illegal entry

the court noted that such a time-limit was only provided for when the

expulsion grounds stated in Section 17 para. 2 of the Aliens Act

applied not however when an expulsion was based on para. 1 of that

Section. The court furthermore considered that the illegal stay of a

foreigner in Austria affected public order and therefore the

applicant's expulsion was necessary in a democratic society there being

no reason to make an exception on account of close family relations.

The applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint which was

however rejected by the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)

on 2 July 1993 as offering no prospects of success.

B. Relevant Domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act read as follows:

[Translation]

"s.17. Deportation. (1) Aliens who are not legally resident in

the Federal territory shall be served with a deportation order;

account must be taken of the provisions of s. 19 when applying

such a measure."

(2) Aliens may be deported on notice in the interests of public

policy where they:

1. have been convicted by a criminal court of a crime of

intent committed within a month of entry, even where

an appeal is still possible; or,

2. within a month of entry, are found in the act of

committing a crime of intent or are credibly accused,

immediately after a crime of intent has been

committed, of being the perpetrator thereof, provided

that the offence carries a substantial sentence and

that the competent public prosecutor has made a

declaration of intention to file a report with the

Federal Minister of Justice pursuant to s. 74 of the

Extradition and International Legal Assistance Act; or

3. breach within a month of entry the regulations

concerning prostitution; or

4. cannot within a month of entry show that they possess

the means to maintain themselves; or

5. are within a month of entry found by an organ of the

Labour Inspectorate or the regional or provincial

offices of the Labour Market Service carrying on an

activity which they are not entitled to pursue under

the Aliens' Employment Act; or

6. entered in breach of the provisions of Part 2 hereof

or by evading border controls and are discovered

within a month.

[German]

"§ 17. Ausweisung. (1) Fremde sind mit Bescheid auszuweisen,

wenn sie sich nicht rechtmässig im Bundesgebiet aufhalten; hiebei

ist auf § 19 Bedacht zu nehmen."

(2) Fremde können im Interesse der öffentlichen Ordnung mit

Bescheid ausgewiesen werden, wenn sie

1. von einem Strafgericht wegen einer innerhalb eines

Monates nach der Einreise begangenen Vorsatztat, wenn auch

nicht rechtskräftig, verurteilt wurden oder

2. innerhalb eines Monates nach der Einreise bei der

Begehung einer Vorsatztat auf frischer Tat betreten oder

unmittelbar nach Begehung der Vorsatztat glaubwürdig der

Täterschaft beschuldigt wurden, wenn überdies die strafbare

Handlung mit beträchtlicher Strafe bedroht ist und eine

Erklärung des zuständigen Staatsanwaltes vorliegt, dem

Bundesminister für Justiz gemäss §74 ARHG berichten zu

wollen, oder

3. innerhalb eines Monates nach der Einreise gegen die

Vorshriften, mit denen die Prostitution geregelt ist,

verstossen oder

4. innerhalb eines Monates nach der Einreise den Besitz

der Mittel zu ihrem Unterhalt nicht nachzuweisen vermögen

oder

5. innerhalb, eines Monates nach der Einreise von einem

Organ der Arbeitsinspektorate, der regionalen

Geschäftsstellen oder der Landesgeschäftsstellen des

Arbeitsmarktservice bei einer Beschäftigung betreten

werden, die si nach dem Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz nicht

ausüben hätten dürfen oder

6. unter Missachtung der Bestimmungen des 2. Teiles oder

unter Umgehung der Grenzkontrolle eingereist sind und

binnen einem Monat betreten werden.

[Translation]

"s. 19. Protection of private and family life. Where a

deportation order under s. 17 para. 1 or a residence prohibition

interferes with an alien's private or family life, such a

withdrawal of permission to remain is valid only if it is

strictly necessary in order to achieve the aims laid down in

Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"

[German]

"§. 19. Schutz des Privat- und Familienlebens. Würde durch

eine Ausweisung gemäss § 17 Abs. 1 oder ein Aufenthaltsverbot in

das Privat- oder Familienleben des Fremden eingegriffen, so ist

ein solcher Entzug der Aufenthaltsberechtigung nur zulässig, wenn

dies zur Erreichung der im Art 8 Abs. 2 der Konvention zum

Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten genannten Ziele

dringend geboten ist."

[Translation]

"s. 20. Invalidity of a residence prohibition. (1) A residence

prohibition shall not be issued if its effects on the alien and

his family's situation outweigh the adverse consequences of not

taking such a measure. In weighing the above factors, the

following circumstances shall be taken into account:

1. the period of residence and the extent to which the

alien or members of his family are integrated into

society;

2. the strength of family or other ties.

(2) In addition to the foregoing, a residence prohibition shall

not be issued against an alien who could have acquired

nationality under s. 10 (1) of the Nationality Act of 1985

BGB1. No. 311 before the relevant facts took place, unless

a residence prohibition were to be based on s. 18 (2) 1 on

the ground that the alien has been convicted of an offence

punishable by more than five years' imprisonment."

[German]

"§20 Unzulässigkeit eines Aufenthaltsverbotes. (1) Ein

Aufenthaltsverbot darf nicht erlassen werden, wenn seine

Auswirkungen auf die Lebenssituation des Fremden und seiner

Familie schwerer wiegen als die nachteiligen Folgen der

Abstandnahme von seiner Erlassung. Bei dieser Abwägung is auf

folgende Umstände Bedacht zu nehmen:

1 die Dauer des Aufenthaltes und das Ausmass der

Integration des Fremden oder seiner

Familienangehörigen;

2 die Intensität des familiären oder sonstigen

Bindungen.

(2) Ein Aufenthaltsverbot darf ausserdem nicht erlassen werden,

wenn dem Fremden vor Verwirklichung des massgeblichen

Sachverhaltes gemäss § 10 Abs. 1 des

Staatsbürgerschaftsgesetzes 1985, BGB1. Nr. 311, die

Staatsbürgerschaft verliehen hätte werden können, es sei

denn, das Aufenthaltsverbot wäre auf § 18 Abs. 2 Z 1 zu

gründen, weil der Fremde wegen einer mit mehr als fünf

Jahren Freiheitssrafe bedrohten strafbaren Handlung

verurteilt worden ist."

[Translation]

"s. 21 Period of validity of a residence prohibition. (1) A

residence prohibition can be for unlimited duration in the cases

set forth in s. 18 (2) 1 and 5, otherwise it is only valid for

a maximum period of ten years.

(2) In establishing the period of validity of a residence

prohibition account shall be taken of the circumstances

relevant to its issue. Time starts running from when the

residence prohibition becomes enforceable."

[German]

"§ 21. Gültigkeitsdauer des Aufenthaltsverbotes. (1) Das Augen-

thaltsverbot kann in den Fällen des § 18 Abs. 2 Z 1 und 5 auch

unbefristet, sonst nur für die Dauer von höchstens zehn Jahren

erlassen werden.

(2) Bei der Festetzung der Gültigkeitsdauer des Aufen-

thaltsverbotes ist auf die für seine Erlassung massgeblichen

Umstände Bedacht zu nehmen. Die Frist beginnt mit Eintritt der

Durchsetzbarkeit zu laufen."

COMPLAINTS

The applicant argues that the text of Section 17 of the Aliens

Act is misleading for lay-men, giving the impression that in all cases

expulsion can only be ordered within a time-limit of one month while,

according to the official interpretation, the one month time-limit only

applies to the cases listed in para. 2 of the Section. He therefore

considers that the Section lacks the necessary precision and

foreseeability as required in the case-law of the European Court of

Human Rights. He further submits that there is a contradiction between

the interpretation of Article 17 of the Aliens Act and the present case

as according to that interpretation there is no time-limit at all for

expulsion measures while Section 20 para. 2 provides that a resident's

permit cannot be denied to a person having lived 10 years on Austrian

territory.

Finally the applicant considers that his expulsion is not

necessary as he is living in Austria without causing any trouble. He

has never been prosecuted criminally and is disturbing nobody. The

applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that his threatened removal from Austrian

territory infringes his right to respect for his family and private

life.

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as relevant:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

family life...

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 is 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 or morals, or for the protection of the

rights and freedoms of others."

The Commission recalls according to its established case-law that

while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee

a right to enter or remain in a particular country issues may arise

where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close

relatives reside (see eg. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9, p. 219;

No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160, and No. 9285/81, Dec.

6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205).

However, the Commission notes that the State's obligation to

admit to its territory aliens who are relatives of persons resident

there will vary according to the circumstances of the case. The Court

has held that Article 8 (Art. 8) does not impose a general obligation

on States to respect the choice of residence of a married couple or to

accept the non-national spouse for settlement in that country (Eur.

Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985,

Series A no. 94, p. 94, para. 68). The Commission considers that this

applies to situations where members of a family, other than spouses,

are non-nationals. Whether removal or exclusion of a family member

from a Contracting State is compatible with the requirements of Article

8 (Art. 8) will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which

family life is effectively ruptured, whether there are insurmountable

obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of

one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control

(eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of

public order (eg. serious or persistent offenses) weighing in favour

of exclusion (see eg. Nos. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205 and

11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87 unpublished).

The Commission first notes that when travelling to Austria with

his father the applicant was already 17 years old and has not indicated

any particular reasons showing a necessity for his living with his

father in Austria instead with the rest of his family staying behind

in Turkey. It can in these particular circumstances appear

questionable whether the threatened expulsion constitutes an

interference with family life.

However, even assuming the existence of family life the

Commission recalls, as regards the question whether the interference

complained of was "necessary in a democratic society", that the

Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing

whether such a need for an interference exists, but it goes hand in

hand with European supervision (see, Eur. Court H.R., Berrehab judgment

of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138, p. 15, para. 128; Funke judgment of

25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p.24, para. 55).

The Commission notes that the Austrian authorities based their

decision on the fact that the applicant entered the country illegally,

i.e. without a visa. They also had regard to his family situation, in

particular the fact that his mother and brothers/sisters were living

in Turkey and that there were no exceptional circumstances entitling

him to stay.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that there are

relevant and sufficient reasons for the challenged decisions. Weighing

the applicant's interests in pursuing his family life with his father

in Austria, and the public interests at stake, the Commission finds

that the Austrian authorities did not overstep the margin of

appreciation left to them.

In this respect the Commission had particular regard to the fact

that the applicant only came to Austria at the age of seventeen and

that most members of his close family remained in Turkey.

Consequently, the interference with the applicant's right to

respect for his private and family life was justified under Article 8

para. 2 (Art. 8-2) in that it can reasonably be considered "necessary

in a democratic society.... in the interest of the economic well-being

of the country" and "for the prevention of disorder and crime".

It follows that the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

ALTUNTAS v. AUSTRIA

ALTUNTAS v. AUSTRIA

LEXI