| Applicant name | P.J. AND R.J. |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | SWITZERLAND |
| Application no. | 52232/20 |
| Date | 17/09/2024 |
| Judges | Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, Jolien Schukking, Georgios A. Serghides, Darian Pavli, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Disproportionate/not necessary |
| Type of privacy | relational privacy |
| Keywords | expulsion criminal |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complained that the first applicant’s expulsion following his criminal conviction was a disproportionate sanction which violated their right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention |
| Analysis | The principle of proportionality requires, inter alia, that account be taken of personal conduct and the impact on family life ). The domestic courts did not question the genuineness of his family life or the negative impact that the five-year expulsion would have on it. They argued that the second applicant could either follow him to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where she had good prospects, or remain in Switzerland, making the separation a matter of choice. As for the applicants’ daughters, the courts concluded that given their age they could adapt to a new environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that their relocation would depend on the second applicant’s choice to follow her husband. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that, in imposing and upholding the five-year expulsion, the domestic courts did not satisfactorily apply the Court’s case-law mandating a careful balancing of the individual and public interests. The courts failed to give due weight to certain aspects. These include the first applicant’s low level of culpability, the fact that his sentence was suspended, his lack of a criminal record, the fact that he no longer posed a threat to public safety, his status as a long-term immigrant and the adverse effect of the expulsion on the members of his family. Two judges write a dissenting opinion |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of cost and expenses |
| Documents | Judgment |