D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BAKA

Like the majority I am of the view that the deportation order amounted to an interference with the applicant ’ s private and family life.  I also share the view that the deportation was in accordance with the l aw and served a legitimate aim.

On the other hand, unlike the majority, I consider that the deportation order was not necessary in a democratic society, because it was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and consequently that there has been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in the present ca se.

In my assessment the applicant has most of his family and social ties in France .  His parents and his ten brothers and sisters reside in France and eight members of the family were born there. He has a child in France , although uncertainty remains as to the exact n ature of the ties between them.

Taking into account all these factors and also that the applicant left Tunisia at the age of 8 with a knowledge of Arabic which definitely does not amount to an adequate command of everyday language for a grown-up and that he "had most of his schooling" in France, I have come to the conclusion that a fair balance has not been struck between the protected interests. Under these circumstances, the expulsion could completely ruin private and family life while giving very little protection to the pr evention of crime and disorder.

I am also not persuaded by the argument of the Court that the applicant ’ s "deportation was decided after he had been sentenced" and that the "seriousness of that last offence and the applicant ’ s previous convictions count heavily against him".

In this respect, I believe that the applicant, who has spent most of his life (twenty-two years) in France , should enjoy treatment not significantly less favourable than would be accorded to a national of the country.  He committed crimes and he has been sentenced for that.  If the criminal sentence itself is adequate and proportionate to the crime committed - as it should be -, to add an expulsion order as well is, in my view, to overemphasise heavily the general interest in the prevention of crime and disorder as against the protection of the individual ’ s ri ght to private and family life.

[1] The case is numbered 16/1995/522/608.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9).  They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently

[3] For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry

[4] See paragraph 44 of the Court's judgment.

[5] Series A no. 234-A, pp. 37 et seq.

[6] Series A no. 234-A, p. 35.

[7] Series A no. 320-B, p. 31.

[8] Series A no. 320-B, p. 32.

[9] See notes 3 and 4

[10] See note 5