1. First and foremost, the Commission and the Court almost never find a violation of Article 8 ECHR on the basis that no legitimate interest was served. Rather, if they find that the government provides a weak legitimation for a certain policy or action, it will take that into account when deciding on whether that should be deemed necessary in a democratic society. In this matter, however, the commission makes abundantly clear that a non-criminal immigrant cannot be extradited on the grounds of protecting public safety or preventing crime.
2. Second, in some cases, the Commission found that because partners could live in another (non-European) country together, the refusion of one of them on European soil should not be considered an interference with Article 8 ECHR. Here, however, presumably both because of the substantial period during which the partners lived together and because they have children, the Commission finds that even although the partner and the children might be able to follow the man to Syria, this should be considered an inteference with their right to family life.
3. Third, what is interesting is that the case is declared inadmissible because of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Normally, the Commission considers this procedural aspect first before turning to the content of the matter. Here, if apperantly felt the necessity to make two statements of law before declaring the case inadmissible on procedural grounds.