003-7660144-10558267

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 159 (2023)   30.05.2023   Decision revoking Moroccan national’s residence permit in the Netherlands   insufficiently took into account his mental illness   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Azzaqui v. the Netherlands (application no. 8757/20)   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the revocation of Mr Azzaqui’s residence permit in 2018 and a ten-year entry   ban to the Netherlands on the grounds that he was a threat to public order. He had been convicted   of several crimes, including rape in 1996. He had a personality disorder when he committed the   latter crime, and has spent most of the following years in a custodial clinic.   The Court found that the Dutch authorities had failed to properly balance the interests at stake. In   particular, they had not sufficiently taken into account that the applicant had been suffering from a   serious mental illness, which had reduced his criminal culpability in the rape proceedings. Nor had   they considered other personal circumstances, such as the progress he had made since his last   offence and that the treatment he had been following was aimed at reintegration into Dutch society.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link)   Principal facts   The applicant, Karim Azzaqui, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1972 and entered the   Netherlands in 1982 to live with his father. In 1991 he obtained a permanent residence permit   (vergunning tot vestiging).   From 1987 Mr Azzaqui was convicted of multiple crimes, ending with rape in 1996. For the latter   offence, the criminal court found that he had diminished criminal culpability because of a   personality disorder. He has spent most of the following years in a custodial clinic   (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege).   In 2018 the Deputy Minister of Justice and Security decided to revoke Mr Azzaqui’s residence permit   and impose on him a ten-year entry ban to the Netherlands on the grounds that he was a threat to   public order. In his decision he acknowledged that Mr Azzaqui had been living in and had built up   social ties in the Netherlands for a very long time, but considered that that was outweighed by the   seriousness of his crimes, the extensions to the court-ordered confinement in a custodial clinic and   the risk of his reoffending. The Minister also found that he was an adult male who could fend for   himself if repatriated to Morocco and that he had family there.   This decision was subsequently assessed and upheld by the national courts.   Pending these revocation proceedings Mr Azzaqui, who had been conditionally released in 2016 into   an assisted living facility for consistent good behaviour, had had a relapse into substance abuse.   According to the probation services this was because he had been severely disturbed by the Minister   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   announcing his intention to revoke his residence permit. The courts therefore ordered his resumed   confinement in a custodial clinic from March 2019.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life), the applicant complained that the decision to   revoke his residence permit and impose an entry ban had been disproportionate. He argued that the   Dutch authorities had failed to sufficiently weigh in the balance his personal circumstances, in   particular his mental illness.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 February 2020.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra), President,   Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),   Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Peeter Roosma (Estonia),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),   and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that a State was entitled to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their   residence there. Furthermore, the European Convention did not guarantee the right of an alien to   enter or to reside in a particular country.   There was no dispute in the applicant’s case that the revocation of his residence permit and the   entry ban had interfered with his right to respect for private life, that those measures had been   taken in accordance with the law and that they aimed to ensure public safety and prevent disorder   or crime.   However, for a settled migrant who had lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood   and youth in the host country, such as in the applicant’s case, very serious reasons, weighing up the   various interests at stake, were required to justify expulsion.   It noted that the applicant’s convictions, including crimes of a violent and of a sexual nature, could   constitute such a “very serious reason”, assuming that all other relevant criteria had adequately   been taken into account by the national authorities in their overall balancing-test. However, when   making that assessment, neither the Deputy Minister nor the courts had sufficiently taken into   account the fact that the applicant had been suffering from a serious mental illness, which had   reduced his criminal culpability.   Nor had the decision-making process apparently considered whether medication and treatment was   available in Morocco for the applicant’s needs or borne in mind the difficulties he might face there   due to his mental vulnerability.   Indeed, the revocation proceedings had overall paid little attention to the applicant’s personal   circumstances. They had not sufficiently taken into account the progress he had made since his last   offence and the fact that – up until the point when the Deputy Minister had announced his intention   to revoke his residence permit – his treatment had been aimed at reintegration into Dutch society.   Despite the State’s wide discretion (“margin of appreciation”) to decide on such matters, the Court   considered that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Dutch authorities had failed to duly   take into account and to properly balance the interests at stake. In the light of this, the Court found   a procedural violation of Article 8.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held, by six votes to one, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained.   Separate opinion   Judge Serghides expressed a partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3