Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Niedzwiecki v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 58453/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

16 June 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency - Rights of non-citizens - Statelessness | Countries: Latvia

16 June 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency - Rights of non-citizens - Statelessness | Countries: Latvia

5 April 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life - Visas | Countries: Morocco - Netherlands

20 January 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Passports - Registration - Residence permits / Residency - Rights of non-citizens - Statelessness | Countries: Georgia - Russian Federation

19 October 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom of expression - Freedom of speech - Persecution based on political opinion - Registration - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Ukraine

9 October 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Registration - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Latvia - Russian Federation

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 subject to editorial revision. The applicant is a national of Bosnia Herzegovina who went to Austria in 1991 to join his mother who was already living and working there. Following several criminal offences (burglary, possession of arms) he was issued with a 10 year residence prohibition in 1995. This decision was confirmed in successive appeals and the applicant was deported to Bosnia Herzegovina in 1997. Before the Court, the applicant complained that the residence prohibition constituted an interference with his right to family life and consequently a violation of Art. 8 § 1 of the ECHR. The Court indicated that its task in such cases was to determine whether a fair balance was struck between the States' interests (prevention of crime) and the applicant's rights. In this case, the Court noted that the applicant was 16 when he was expelled. Moreover, Bosnia had just been through a conflict and the applicant's father has been reported missing since the end of the conflict. There was no evidence that he still had relatives living there. Turning to the criminal offences, the Court considered that while the applicant was convicted twice for burglary, he was only given conditional sentences of imprisonment. Moreover, there were no indications that he made use of the arms for which he received a prohibition of possession. Based on all these elements, the Court decided the Austrian authorities did not strike a fair balance between the interests at stake. Consequently there was a violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR.

6 May 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Austria - Bosnia and Herzegovina

The judgment became final on 2 November 2001.

2 August 2001 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Immigration law - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Algeria - Switzerland

The judgment became final on 2 November 2001.

2 August 2001 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Immigration law - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Algeria - Switzerland