Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
life” of an adult migrant convicted of serious offences, who had no children, no elements of dependence with his parents or siblings, and had consistently demonstrated a lack of will to comply with the law. 289. Very serious reasons are required to justify the expulsion of a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in a host country (Maslov v. Austria [GC], § 75). In the very specific case of a foreigner, who had arrived in the host country as a child with a tourist visa, which expired shortly after his arrival, and who had not known about his unlawful stay until he was 17 years old, the Court did not consider the applicant a “settled migrant” because his residence in the host country had not been lawful. In such a case, it could neither be said that the refusal of a residence permit would require very serious reasons to be justified under Article 8 nor that it would violate that provision only in very exceptional circumstances. Instead, the assessment has to be carried out from a neutral starting point, taking into account the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case (Pormes v. the Netherlands, § 61).
11. Marital and parental status 290. The Court has considered cases concerning the marital or parental status of individuals to fall within the ambit of private and family life. In particular, it found that the registration of a marriage, being a recognition of an individual’s legal civil status, undoubtedly concerns both private and family life and comes within the scope of Article 8 § 1 (Dadouch v. Malta, § 48). An Austrian court’s decision to nullify the applicant’s marriage had implications for her legal status and in general on her private life. However, since the marriage had been fictitious, the interference with her private life was found to be proportionate (Benes v. Austria, Commission decision). 291. Similarly, proceedings relating to one’s identity as a parent fall under private and family life. The Court has found cases involving the determination of the legal provisions governing a father’s relations with his putative child to come within the scope of private life (Rasmussen v. Denmark, § 33; Yildirim v. Austria (dec.); Krušković v. Croatia, § 20; Ahrens v. Germany, § 60; Tsvetelin Petkov v. Bulgaria, §§ 49-59; Marinis v. Greece, § 58), as does a putative father’s attempt to disavow paternity (R.L. and Others v. Denmark, § 38; Shofman v. Russia, §§ 30-32. In addition, the right to apply for adoption with a view to becoming parents falls within the scope of private life (A.H. and Others v. Russia, § 383).
European Court of Human Rights
70/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
