On 9 April 2019 the European Court of Human Rights handed down a Chamber judgment in the case of I.M. v. Switzerland (application no. 23887/16), concerning the Swiss authorities’ refusal to renew the residence permit of the applicant (a Kosovar national who has lived in Switzerland since 1993) and the order expelling him from Swiss territory, following his conviction for a rape committed in 2003. The applicant, whose rate of disability has been assessed at 80%, is currently living in Switzerland with his adult children, on whom he is dependent. The Court held that there would be a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicant were to be expelled to Kosovo. It found in particular that the Federal Administrative Court, when adjudicating in 2015 – that is to say more than 12 years after the offence committed by the applicant – had not taken account of the change in the applicant’s behaviour or assessed the impact of the major downturn in his state of health on the risk of his reoffending. Nor had the Federal Administrative Court taken into consideration the strength of the applicant’s social, cultural and family bonds with the host country (Switzerland) and the country of destination (Kosovo), or carried out a sufficiently thorough analysis of the implications of the applicant’s dependence on his adult children. The domestic authorities had thus conducted a superficial examination of the proportionality of the expulsion order and had failed convincingly to demonstrate that it was proportionate to the legitimate aims sought to be achieved (the prevention of disorder or crime) and necessary in a democratic society.

On 24 April 2019 the European Court of Human Rights held a hearing in the case of M.N. and Others v. Belgium (application no. 3599/18): which concerns a couple and their two children, all Syrian nationals, who were refused the short-stay visas for which they had applied to the Belgian embassy in Beirut with a view to seeking asylum in Belgium. A webcast of the hearing is available.