Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31

June 2001

Selmani v. Switzerland (dec.) - 70258/01

Decision 28.6.2001 [Section II]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Deportation of wife and child of detainee, preventing them from visiting him in prison: inadmissible

In 1997, the first applicant, a Yugoslav citizen, married A.S., also a Yugoslav citizen, who had settled in Switzerland some years before and had obtained a residence permit. As a consequence, the applicant also obtained a residence permit. The same year, the second applicant, their daughter, was born in Switzerland. In 1999, A.S. was convicted of a drug-related offence and sentenced to eight ye ars’ imprisonment and a prohibition on entering the country for fifteen years. On appeal, the prison sentence was reduced to six years. In January 2000, the Aliens’ Police consequently refused to prolong the residence permits of A.S. and the applicants. Th e latter were asked to leave to country by May 2000, while the former would have to leave after having served his prison sentence, i.e. in November 2002. The applicants’ subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.

Inadmissible under Article 8: The Convention doe s not grant detainees the right of choosing the place of their detention. Separation and distance from their families are inevitable consequences of detention. However, the detention of a person in a prison at a distance from his family which renders any v isit very difficult, if not impossible, may, in exceptional circumstances, constitute an interference with his family life, the possibility for members of his family to visit a prisoner being an essential factor to preserve family life. In the instant case , the applicants complained that if forced to leave Switzerland, they would not have the means to travel back there regularly to visit A.S. in prison. However, such a right to visit a family member in prison would prove considerably difficult for States to organise. Moreover, the Swiss authorities enabled the applicants to visit regularly A.S. and to communicate with him through writing and telephone, and he is due to be released at the end of 2002. The difficulties which the applicants encountered were thu s not excessive and did not render family life impossible. The present article did not imply, in the present case, an obligation for the authorities to ensure that the applicants could visit A.S: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes