Gulijev v. Lithuania

Title
Gulijev v. Lithuania

Court:
European Court of Human Rights

Citation:
Application no. 10425/03

Date:
16 December 2008

Violation:
European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life

In the case of Gulijev v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as ...originated in an application (no. 10425/03) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention ...Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijan citizen, Mr Ibrahim Gulijev (“the applicant”), on 12 March 2003. The applicant was ...under Article 8 of the Convention that his expulsion from Lithuania to Azerbaijan breached his right to respect for his family ...his wife and children were Lithuanian citizens and lived in Lithuania. The applicant alleged that the authorities’ decision to deport him ...Biedermansdorf, Austria.The date of the applicant’s arrival in Lithuania was disputed between the parties. The applicant stated that he had lived in Lithuania since 1989, proof of which was the judgment of 1989 ...the country. He also noted that he had arrived in Lithuania before the introduction of the visa regime in the early ...and that the applicant only lawfully entered the territory of Lithuania on 12 March 2001, when he was issued with a ...and his partner SG, a Lithuanian citizen, was born in Lithuania. In 2001 the applicant was officially registered as the father ...the applicant to leave the territory of the Republic of Lithuania by 4 July 2002. 12. On 26 June 2002 the ...be quashed. The applicant argued that he had lived in Lithuania since 1989, from which date he had been granted a temporary residence permit several times, owned real estate in Lithuania, had his own business, had established a non-governmental organisation “Ibrahim ...aimed to foster the cultural traditions of Azeris residing in Lithuania, and in 1996 had had a daughter with his wife ...the applicant, and concluded that the applicant’s continued presence in Lithuania endangered the national security of the country and public order. ...difficulties integrating in Azerbaijan if the applicant was expelled from Lithuania and she decided to go with him. The applicant maintained ...to comply with the order to leave the territory of Lithuania and, on 16 September 2002, he was arrested and temporarily ...basis, the court concluded that the applicant’s continued presence in Lithuania posed a threat to the national security of the State, ...to Azerbaijan and prohibit him from entering the territory of Lithuania for an unspecified period of time. On the same day the applicant was deported from Lithuania by train; however, he jumped off the train and stayed in Lithuania. On 16 October 2002 the applicant was prohibited from entering Lithuania until 2099. 18. In October 2002 the applicant and SG’s ...lodged a request to be deported from the Republic of Lithuania as soon as possible, indicating that the questions regarding his ...padėties) regulates the status of aliens in the Republic of Lithuania. At the material time the Law provided that an alien ...to obtain a temporary residence permit in the Republic of Lithuania provided his or her children or spouse were Lithuanian citizens and resided in Lithuania. According to Article 20 of the Law, an alien who ...into a marriage with a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania or an alien in permanent residence in the Republic of Lithuania could be issued with a temporary residence permit for a ...been withdrawn, was required to depart from the Republic of Lithuania within ten days from the date of service of that ...from the country and prohibited from re-entering the Republic of Lithuania for a definite or an indefinite period. Article 36 of ...of the alien’s family lawfully residing in the Republic of Lithuania. 25. The Law on Administrative Proceedings (Administracini~ byl~ teisenos ~statymas) ...of the Convention, the applicant complained that his expulsion from Lithuania to Azerbaijan breached his right to respect for his family ...citizens. In addition the applicant claimed that his expulsion from Lithuania limited his right to participate in the upbringing of his ...the Supreme Administrative Court, after which the applicant’s stay in Lithuania became illegal. The applicant maintained that his attempts to bring ...desperate efforts to prolong the duration of his stay in Lithuania, where all his family lived. The same applied to his ...the available domestic remedies. In particular, the applicant’s stay in Lithuania became illegal after the Migration Department’s decision of 14 June ...the decision to deport the applicant from the territory of Lithuania, in essence only implemented the main decision of 14 June ...upon to pronounce itself on admissibility (see, mutatis mutandis, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, ...He argued that he was genuinely integrated into life in Lithuania, where he had a business and had registered a non-governmental ...was to foster the cultural traditions of Azeris residing in Lithuania. The applicant stressed that from 1993 he had lived in Lithuania with SG, a Lithuanian citizen, whom he had married in ...Government considered that the applicant had only lawfully lived in Lithuania since 12 March 2001, when he had been issued with ...permit. Given the short time the applicant had spent in Lithuania, he could not have developed close personal, social and economic ...a temporary residence permit to a person whose stay in Lithuania posed a threat to national security. The law established clear ...the present case the applicant’s deportation from the territory of Lithuania had corresponded to the legitimate aim of protecting the interests ...Government deduced that the applicant’s deportation from the Republic of Lithuania had been fully compatible with the requirements of Article 8 ...enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. ...territory and their residence there (see, among other authorities, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-...). In ...for settlement in that country (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A ...in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 36, Series A no. 193; see also Üner v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 57, and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX, § 39). Such interference will ...or by any other means (see X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 April 1997, Reports of ...as to the actual date when he lawfully arrived in Lithuania (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above). However, the Court observes ...moment of its birth, by that very fact (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, ...refused a temporary residence permit and was consequently deported from Lithuania. The Court cannot follow the Government’s argument that the family ...had strong social and cultural ties with the Republic of Lithuania (see, mutatis mutandis, Üner v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 58). Moreover, the applicant’s daughters were born in Lithuania and have lived in that country all their lives. As ...might have had a certain weight (see Achmadov and Bagurova v. Sweden (dec.), no. 34081/05, 10 July 2007, unreported). From the above considerations, the Court concludes that the applicant’s expulsion from Lithuania amounted to an interference with his right to respect for ...that it is proportionate to the aim pursued (see Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 28, Series A no. ...by an applicant may be taken into account (see Boultif v. Switzerland, cited above, § 48). 44. In the present case, ...temporary residence permit. As a result, he was deported from Lithuania. Moreover, the Government acknowledged that, when reaching their decisions, the ...threat to national security posed by the applicant’s stay in Lithuania. The Government’s response was limited to the assertion that the ...First, there was no evidence that the applicant’s stay in Lithuania had posed such a threat beforehand – in 2001 the ...applicant was deported and until 2099 is prohibited from re-entering Lithuania, where his two children and wife, all of whom were ...in the determination of the lawfulness of his stay in Lithuania were unfair. In this connection the Court reiterates that decisions ...the meaning of this Convention provision (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 82, ECHR 2005-I). ...Disagreeing with the Government’s submission that his family could leave Lithuania to join him in Azerbaijan, the applicant alleged a violation.

Link to Full Judgement:
Available through: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&source=tkp&highlight=Gulijev%20|%20v.%20|%20Lithuania&sessionid=96081532&skin=hudoc-en