Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person (immigrant)
Country Germany
Decision no. 1611/62
Date 25/09/1965
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Ratione materiae
Type of privacy Private and Family life
Keywords Immigrant; Ratione loci; extra-territorial applicability; ratione materiae
Facts of the case The German consul in Casablanca and the secretary of the consulate in Tangiers have asked to expel applicant from Morocco, which the country did. For various reasons, the applicant believes that this expulsion was unjustified, not based on valid reasons and violated a number of his Convention rights, among others that it deprived him and his wife the protection of their private and family life.
Analysis This case is interesting because it concerns the question of territorial applicability. The Commission makes clear that Morocco is not bound by the Convention and that it very much questions whether the German authorities can be held accountable for the deportation of the applicant. It stresses: ‘Whereas it is true that the Applicant attributes his deportation to unwarranted intrigues against him conducted by the Federal Republic of Germany with the Moroccan authorities; Whereas under Article 1 of the Convention “the High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the right and freedoms defined in Section 1 of [the] Convention”; Whereas, in certain respects, the nationals of a Contracting State are within its “jurisdiction” even when domiciled or resident abroad; whereas, in particular, the diplomatic and consular representatives of their country of origin perform certain duties with regard tot hem which ma, in certain circumstances, make that country liable in respect of the Convention; Whereas, however, the Commission notes that the Applicant has not furnished sufficient proof in support of his allegations;’

In addition, the Commission stresses that deportation as such is not one of the matters governed by the Convention (ratione materiae). In addition, the Commission suggests, that there is nothing otherwise in the case that would suggest an infringement of the applicant’s private or family life.

Documents Decision