REDZEPI v. SWITZERLAND

THE LAW

The applicant complains of his expulsion to Yugoslavia, alleging

that neither his wife nor his daughter can be expected to follow him.

He relies on Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which states, insofar

as relevant:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

family life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with

the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with

the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests

of national security, public safety or the economic well-being

of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the

rights and freedoms of others."

The Commission recalls that no right of an alien to enter or to

reside in a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention.

Nevertheless, the expulsion of a person from a country where close

members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the

right to respect for family life guaranteed in Article 8 para. 1

(Art. 8-1) of the Convention (see Eur. Court HR, Moustaquim v. Belgium

judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 18, para. 36).

In the present case, the Commission finds that the applicant's

expulsion would interfere with his right to respect for his private and

family life within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the

Convention.

The Commission must, therefore, examine whether such interference

is justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

The Commission notes that the Swiss authorities, in particular

the Federal Court in its decision of 7 July 1997, relied on S. 10

para. 1 (a) of the Federal Act on Residence and Domicile of Aliens.

According to this provision, a foreigner may be expelled if he has been

punished by a court.

The interference is, therefore, "in accordance with the law"

within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

Moreover, when deciding to expel the applicant, the Swiss

authorities considered that he had been convicted of contravening the

Narcotics Act. The measure was therefore imposed "for the prevention

of ... crime" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the

Convention.

Finally, the Commission has examined whether the measure is

"necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8

para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention, as interpreted in the Convention

organs' case-law (see Eur. Court HR, Bouchelkia v. France judgment of

29 January 1997, Reports 1997-I, No. 28, para. 48).

In the present case, the Commission considers, on the one hand,

that the applicant has been convicted for contravening the Narcotics

Act. In its decision of 7 July 1997 the Federal Court found that the

applicant's culpability was severe.

On the other hand, the Commission notes that the applicant's

wife, who is a Yugoslav citizen of Kosovo origin, has only lived in

Switzerland for five years and remains familiar with the circumstances

in her home country where her mother and her siblings live. The

applicant's daughter, born in 1993, is still of an adaptable age.

Thus, both the applicant's wife and his daughter can be expected to

follow the applicant upon his return to Yugoslavia.

Taking into account the margin of appreciation which is left to

Contracting States in such circumstances (see Eur. Court HR, Boughanemi

v. France judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, No. 8, p. 610,

para. 41), the Commission considers that the interference with the

applicant's right to respect for his private and family life is

justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention in that

it can reasonably be considered "necessary in a democratic society ...

for the prevention of ... crime".

The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.