ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
ECtHR Krasniqi v. Austria (no. 41697/12)
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Country of Applicant:
Kosovo
Date of Decision:
25-04-2017
Citation:
Krasniqi v. Austria (no. 41697/12), 25 April 2017
Court Name:
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section)
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 2
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 3
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 34
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 35
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 38
Headnote:
Every country has the right to control the entry and residence of aliens in its territory. Withdrawal of subsidiary protection from individuals convicted of serious crimes and subsequent expulsion does not violate their right to family life under Article 8, when there are alternative means of communication, non-severed cultural ties with the motherland and a reasonable prospect of return after the entry ban expiry.
Facts:
The Applicant is a married Kosovar national, father of four, living with his family in Austria. All of them are beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and hold a temporary residence permit, which has been extended several times. From 2003 onwards the Applicant was convicted nine times for crimes against lifeand property and received sentences including imprisonment, which resulted in the withdrawal of his subsidiary protection by the authorities. The Applicant was ultimately expelled to Kosovo and an entry ban was issued against him.
The Applicant challenged the authorities’ decisions before the ECtHR claiming infringement upon his rights to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR because he had been living in the country for a considerable period and he was both socially and economically integrated there. Furthermore, he alleged that his expulsion would deprive him of the possibility to provide for his family still living in Austria and complained that even if his family would join him in Kosovo, one of his daughters would not because she is the fruit of an extra-marital relationship and lives with her mother.
Decision & Reasoning:
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 ECHR. It was explained that the frequency of the Applicant’s criminal behavior proved his indifference toward the host country’s legal system and already disrupted his family life by being receiving several imprisonment sentences. It further highlighted every state’s right to control the entry and residence of aliens in its territory.
The Court did not question the issue that emerged in relation with the Applicant’s daughter in question but it stated that the applicant had not substantiated how established his relationship with that daughter was and the reasons why their contact would have been too difficult. It further suggested the existence of alternative means of contact applicable to his daughter and the rest of his family in Austria, which had never been contested by the Applicant.
Taking into consideration the fact that both the Applicant and his wife still had ties with Kosovo, spoke the language, the fact that the Applicant was allowed to return to Austria in less than 5 years after the expulsion and Kosovo being safe enough for his wife and family to visit or move with him, as per the Applicant’s own statement, the Court found the expulsion not having seriously affected the Applicant’s rights as to constitute a violation of Article 8 ECHR.
Outcome:
No violation of Article 8 ECHR.
Observations/Comments:
This summary was completed by Odyssefs Platonas, LLM student at Queen Mary University.
Case Law Cited:
Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, 1 December 2016
Sarközi and Mahran v. Austria, no. 27945/10, 2 April 2015
Palanci v. Switzerland, no. 2607/08, 25 March 2014
Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012
Joseph Grant v. the United Kingdom, no. 10606/07, 8 January 2009
ECtHR - Balogun v. United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, 10 April 2012
ECtHR - A.H. Khan v. UK, Application no. 6222/10, 20.12.2011
ECtHR - Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no 1638/03
ECtHR - Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10
ECtHR- Berrehab v. the Netherlands, Application no. 10730/84
ECtHR - Miah v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 53080/07
ECtHR - Bajsultanov v Austria, Application No. 54131/10
ECtHR - Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], Application No. 46410/99
ECtHR - Boultif v Switzerland, Application No. 54273/00
ECtHR - Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], Application No. 48321/99
Attachment(s):
Other sources cited:
Authentic Language:
English
State Party:
Austria
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Austrian Criminal Code Article 19§3
37§1
Austrian Asylum Act 2005 Section 8(1) and 9
Austrian Immigration Police Act Section 62(1) and 65(3)
