JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES RAIMONDI, SAJÓ AND SPANO

1. We agree with the Court ’ s resolution of this case. However, we write separately to express disagreement with the way in which the Court categorises the aim, in Convention terms, of the domestic authorities ’ reference to the applicant ’ s financial situation and its effect on the decision to expel him from Switzerland in 2004.

2. The Court has previously held that one of the legitimate aims that a Contracting state may pursue under Article 8 § 2, when deciding whether to expel a foreigner, is whether the interference with the foreigner ’ s right to family and private life is justified on the basis of the “economic well-being of the country” (see Hasanbasic v. Switzerland , no. 52166/09, § 52, 11 June 2013). In our view, the financial conduct of the applicant in the present case was an element that the domestic authorities were justified in taking into account on this basis.

3. However, in paragraph 58, in fine , of the Court ’ s judgment, it is stated that the domestic authorities “rightly assumed that the applicant ’ s [financial] behaviour had been a threat to public order”.

4. In this regard, we note, that “public order”, as such, is not listed as one of the legitimate aims under the limitation clause of Article 8 § 2 justifying a restriction on the rights afforded in paragraph 1 of that Article. However, the limitation clause does contain the synonymous aims of “public safety” and “the prevention of disorder or crime”.

5. In our view, it is clear that a foreigner ’ s financial disarray, provided no criminal offence is involved, and in particular, the extent to which he or she has had to rely on material support from the State, cannot be equated with conduct that is capable, in principle, of constituting a threat to “public safety” within that term ’ s autonomous meaning under the Convention. It is furthermore self-evident that an expulsion order on the basis of a foreigner ’ s financial conduct, if it does not contravene domestic law, cannot be justified by the aim of “the prevention of disorder or crime”.

6. It is true that the respondent Government did not directly plead before this Court that the expulsion order in the applicant ’ s case was based on the legitimate aim of securing the economic well-being of the country and thus only referred to the aim of securing public order. This is, in our view, immaterial for the resolution of this case and the way in which the Court must examine the facts under Article 8. It may well be that domestic legislation, including a concept such as “public order”, can be applied by domestic authorities to a foreigner ’ s financial situation, as seems to have been the case here. However, this does not mean that the same conclusion obtains when the Court is engaged in interpreting and applying the autonomous concepts under Article 8 to the facts of an application lodged with the Court.