ABSTRACT
Whether the applicant had a private and family life within the meaning of A 8 had to be determined by the Court in the light of the position at the time when the impugned measure was adopted. Although he could not claim at that time to be involved in a relationship, he had received his schooling there, and his parents and his eight brothers and sisters lived there. Consequently, the measure complained of amounted to interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life. The deportation order was based on the 1945 Ordinance concerning the conditions of entry and residence of aliens in France. The interference sought to achieve the aim of ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’. It was for the Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right to control the entry and residence of aliens. To that end they had the power to deport aliens convicted of criminal offences. With regard to the applicant’s ties, the applicant had arrived in France at the age of 5 and had lived there since 1967, except for the period from 5 May 1987 to 5 August 1988, when he was serving a prison sentence in Switzerland. He received his education in France, he worked there for a short period and his parents and his eight brothers and sisters live there. On the other hand, he had not shown any desire to acquire French nationality at the time when he was entitled to do so. The offences committed, by their seriousness and the severity of the penalties they attracted, constituted a particularly serious violation of the security of persons and property and of public order. In the circumstances the requirements of public order outweighed the personal considerations which prompted the application. The order for the applicant’s deportation could not be regarded as disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. There had accordingly been no breach of A 8.
