EIT arvioi käytännössä koko elämänsä Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa asuneen henkilön karkottamista Nigeriaan

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on tuoreessa ratkaisussaan arvioinut tilannetta, jossa viranomaiset olivat päättäneet 2-vuotiaasta lähtien Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa asuneen, rikoksiin syyllistyneen Nigerian kansalaisen karkottamisesta. Miehellä oli vuonna 2012 syntynyt poika ja pojan äidillä puolestaan ei ollut mitään siteitä Nigeriaan.

EIT katsoi, että kun henkilö oli 12-vuotiaasta lukien syyllistynyt vakaviin rikoksiin ja kun kansalliset tuomiot olivat huolellisesti punninneet karkotuksen vaikutuksia karkotettavan yksityis- ja perhe-elämään, ei EIT pitänyt aiheellista arvioida asiaa toisin kuin kansalliset tuomioistuimet. Karkottamiselle ei ollut EIS:stä johtuvia esteitä.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The case Ndidi v. the United Kingdom (application no. 41215/14) concerned a Nigerian national’s complaint about his deportation from the United Kingdom. Mr Ndidi, the applicant, arrived with his mother in the UK aged two. He had an escalating history of offending from the age of 12, with periods spent in institutions for young offenders. He was released in March 2011, aged 24, and served with a deportation order. All his appeals were unsuccessful. He is currently awaiting deportation, pending an application to the Nigerian authorities for a valid travel document.

In his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights Mr Ndidi alleged in particular that his deportation would constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his family and private life, notably with his son who was born in 2012 to a British national with no connection to Nigeria.

In [a] Chamber judgment in the case the European Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been:

no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court considered that Mr Ndidi’s case required careful scrutiny, given the length of his residence in the UK, his relationship with his son and other family members there, and his limited ties to his home country. However, the Court saw no grounds for calling into question the domestic authorities’ decision to deport him. All the domestic decision-makers had given thorough and careful consideration to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention in the case, including the requirement that the deportation order had to strike a fair balance between Mr Ndidi’s right to private and family life, on the one hand, and the community’s interests, on the other. The Court pointed out in particular that there would have to be strong reasons for it to carry out a fresh assessment of this balancing exercise, especially where independent and impartial domestic courts had carefully examined the facts of the case, applying the relevant human rights standards consistently with the European Convention and its case-law.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here