1 / 13

Marius Emberland advokat, Regjeringsadvokaten

EMK artikkel 8 og utvisning fra riket: Refleksjoner omkring EMDs dom i Darren Omoregie m fl. mot Norge (2008). Marius Emberland advokat, Regjeringsadvokaten. FIRST SECTION CASE OF DARREN OMOREGIE AND OTHERS v. NORWAY (Application no. 265/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 July 2008.

jesse-sanford
Download Presentation

Marius Emberland advokat, Regjeringsadvokaten

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EMK artikkel 8 og utvisning fra riket:Refleksjoner omkring EMDs dom i Darren Omoregie m fl. mot Norge (2008) Marius Emberland advokat, Regjeringsadvokaten

  2. FIRST SECTION CASE OF DARREN OMOREGIE AND OTHERS v. NORWAY (Application no. 265/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 July 2008

  3. § 29.Utvisning. (1) Utlending kan utvises a) når utlendingen grovt eller gjentatte ganger har overtrådt en eller flere bestemmelser i loven her eller unndrar seg gjennomføring av vedtak som innebærer at vedkommende skal forlate riket, --- (2) Utvisning etter første ledd bokstav a, b, c, e og f besluttes ikke dersom det i betraktning av forholdets alvor og utlendingens tilknytning til riket vil være et uforholdsmessig tiltak overfor utlendingen selv eller de nærmeste familiemedlemmene.        --- (4) Utvisning er til hinder for senere innreise i riket. Innreiseforbudet kan gjøres varig eller tidsbegrenset, men som hovedregel ikke for kortere tidsrom enn to år. Etter søknad kan den som er utvist få adgang til riket, men som regel ikke før to år er gått fra utreisen. § 4.Lovens forhold til internasjonale regler.        Loven skal anvendes i samsvar med internasjonale regler som Norge er bundet av når disse har til formål å styrke utlendingens stilling.

  4. Darren § 54: “… the Court reiterates that a State is entitled, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34, § 67, Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VI, p. 2264, § 42). The Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country. …” • Art 8.Retten til respekt for privatliv og familieliv • Enhver har rett til respekt for sitt privatliv og familieliv, sitt hjem og sin korrespondanse. • 2. Det skal ikke skje noe inngrep av offentlig myndighet i utøvelsen av denne rettighet unntatt når dette er i samsvar med loven og er nødvendig i et demokratisk samfunn av hensyn til den nasjonale sikkerhet, offentlige trygghet eller landets økonomiske velferd, for å forebygge uorden eller kriminalitet, for å beskytte helse eller moral, eller for å beskytte andres rettigheter og friheter.

  5. 1979: Louis Darren født i Nigeria • 2001: • - 25. august 2001: Søknad om asyl i Norge • - Okt 2001: Møter Elisabeth • 2002: • - Mars 2002 samboere • - 22. mai 2002: UDI avslår søknad om asyl; påklages; får bli inntil klagesak avgjort • - 10. september 2002: forlovelse • - 11. september 2002: UNE avslår klagen; pålegg om å forlate riket iht. utl. § 41 • - 30. september 2002: Politiets utlendingsenhets frist for å forlate riket frivillig. Etter dette tidspunkt ulovlig opphold i riket • - 1. oktober 2002: anmodning om utsatt iverksettelse av utreise; for øvrig ingen rettslig prøving av vedtaket om avslag • - 7. oktober 2002: UNE avviser anmodningen • 2003: • - 2. februar 2003: ekteskap inngås • - 14. februar 2003: søknad om opphold på familiegjenforeningsgrunnlag • - 26. april 2003: UDI avslår søknaden om opphold • - 7. mai 2003: politiet anmoder om frivillig utreise • - 14. mai 2003: klager på avslaget av 26. april; ber om utsatt iverksettelse av utreisepålegg; UNE avslår klagen • - 4. juli 2003: UDI varsler om utvisning iht. utl § 29 første ledd bokstav a) • - 26. august 2003: UDI fatter vedtak om utvisning; påklages • - 19. oktober 2003: Politiet ber ham forlate riket

  6. 2004: • - 21. juli 2004: UNE opprettholder UDIs vedtak om utvisning; ikke uforholdsmessig etter EMK artikkel 8 • 2005: • - 15. februar 2005: Oslo tingrett kjenner utvisningsvedtaket av 21.4..2004 ugyldig; staten anker • - 15. februar 2005: Ny søknad om arbeidstillatelse på familiegjenforeningsgrunnlag • 2006: • - Januar 2006: Selma unnfanges • - 27. februar 2006: Borgarting lagmannsrett: vedtaket ikke ugyldig • - 14. juni 2006: Høyesteretts kjæremålsutvalg slipper ikke anken inn • - 21. juli 2006: UDI avslår søknaden om arbeidstillatelse av 15. februar 2005 • - 20. september 2006: Selma blir født • - 31. oktober 2006: UNE avslår klagen over vedtak av 21.7.2006 • - 2. november 2006: UDI avslår anmodning om å utsette iverksettelse av utvisningsvedtaket • 13. desember 2006: klage til Strasbourg samt begjæring om midlertidig forføyning. Klagen slipper inn, men ikke gitt midlertidig forføyning • 2007: • 7. mars 2007: Louis Darren sendes ut av riket

  7. Forelå det overhodet et inngrep i Darren-familiens ”rett til respekt for … familieliv”, jf. EMK artikkel 8 nr 1? • Statens argumentasjon • Dommer Jebens’ resonnement • EMDs resonnement § 53.  ”At the outset the Court finds it clear that the relationships between the applicants constituted “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, which provision is therefore applicable to the instant case.” § 55.  However, it is to be noted that the first and the second applicants got married in Norway on 2 February 2003. The genuineness of their marriage has not been called into question and a child from the couple, the third applicant, was born on 20 September 2006. The family remained united and lived in Norway until the first applicant’s expulsion on 7 March 2007. In these circumstances the Court considers that the impact of the impugned measures constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for family life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkame, cited above, § 38).

  8. Vedtakets forhold til lovskrav og formålskrav, jf. EMK artikkel 8 nr 2: • Ingen diskusjon om dette § 56.  ”As to the further question whether the interference was justified under Article 8 § 2, the Court is satisfied that it had a legal basis in national law, namely section 29(1)(a) and (4) of the Immigration Act, and that it pursued the legitimate aims of preventing “disorder or crime” and protecting the “economic well-being of the country”. Indeed this seems undisputed.”

  9. Var vedtaket om utvisning forholdsmessig, jf. EMK artikkel 8 nr 2? • Norske myndigheters syn • Klagers syn • EMDs resonnement: fastleggingen av normen 56. … “However, a question arises whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, that is to say justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (see, as a recent authority, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006). 57.  In assessing the question of necessity, the Court will have regard to the various factors indicated in paragraphs 57 to 59 of the above-mentioned Üner judgment. The State must strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation. Moreover, Article 8 does not entail a general obligation for a State to respect immigrants’ choice of the country of their residence and to authorise family reunion in its territory. Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State’s obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest … Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see …). Another important consideration is whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious … Where this is the case the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances …).”

  10. Den konkrete forholdsmessighetsvurderingen, EMDs dom §§ 58-68 • Vektlegging av berettigede forventninger, §§ 59-62: “In the Court’s view, at no stage prior to their marriage on 2 February 2003 could the first and the second applicants have reasonably held any expectation that he would be granted leave to remain in Norway. … This state of affairs was not changed, but was confirmed rather, by the developments in the case in the ensuing period.” • Darrens forbindelser til Norge/Nigeria: § 66.  ”It should further be noted that the first applicant had lived in Nigeria since he was six months old until he left the country at the age of 22, had studied at university for four years and had three brothers with whom he was still in contact. Whereas his links to Nigeria were particularly strong, his links to Norway were comparatively weak, apart from the family bounds he had formed there with the second and third applicants pending the proceedings.” • Hensynet til barnet ikke tungtveiende: § 66: “The third applicant was still of an adaptable age at the time when the disputed measures were decided and implemented”. • Ektefellens muligheter: § 66: “The second applicant would probably experience some difficulties and inconveniences in settling in Nigeria, despite her experience from a period spent in another African country, South Africa, and the fact that English was also the official language of Nigeria. However, the Court does not find that there were insurmountable obstacles in the way of the applicants’ developing family life in the first applicant’s country of origin.”

  11. Den konkrete forholdsmessighetsvurderingen, EMDs dom §§ 58-68 • Andre realitetsbetraktninger: • Faktiske muligheter for effektivt familieliv, § 66 i.f.: “In any event, nothing should prevent the second and third applicants from coming to visit the first applican for periods in Nigeria”, og § 67 i.f. “Moreover, it was open to the first applicant to apply for re-entry already after two years” • Mindretallets syn: • Manglende bruk av rettsapparatet i første runde: § 59 nest siste setning: “No judicial appeal was lodged against these decisions”. • Vektlegging av Darrens’ åpenlyse brudd på loven: § 59 i.f.: “Nevertheless, the first applicant opted to evade his duty to leave and stayed in Norway illegally”. Mindretallets syn (Malinverni og Kovler): “Contrary to most expulsion cases which the Court has had to consider, in this case the first applicant had not committed any criminal offense.”

  12. Oppsummerende betraktninger • Utpreget konkret vurdering av om myndighetene holder seg innenfor EMKs grenser • En konsolidering av Strasbourg-praksis: Signal om strengere holdning? • En nokså typisk sak fra utlendingsrettens område, hvor EMK påberopes

More Related