On 2 December 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held down a Chamber decision in the case of Jallow v. Norway (application no. 36516/19). The applicant, Ebrima Pa Jallow, is a Gambian national who lives in Gambia. The case concerned proceedings in which he lodged an application to be granted parental responsibility for his child, living in Norway, following the child’s mother’s death. In particular, he had to attend a court hearing in the proceedings via Skype as he was not granted a visa to enter Norway for reasons of immigration control. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Jallow alleged that the proceedings were unfair, mainly because he was not allowed to appear in person. The Court found in particular that Mr Jallow had been assisted by his lawyer who was present at the hearing at all times and, even though it was technically more complicated than if he had been in the same room, he had been given plenty of opportunities to present his case both during the case-preparation and at the hearing itself. The Court rejected as inadmissible Mr Jallow’s complaint that the refusal to give him parental responsibility violated his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the Convention. The reasons provided by the High Court were both relevant and sufficient and there were no indications to suggest that the domestic authorities had not pursued the best interests of the child or had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests in the case. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 6.

On 7 December 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held down a Grand Chamber judgement in the case of Savran v. Denmark (application no. 57467/15). The case concerned a Turkish national who had been resident in Denmark for most of his life. He was deported in 2015 following a 2008 expulsion order given for violent crimes he had committed in the 2000s. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also found, by a majority of 11 votes to 6, a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life). It found in particular that the domestic authorities had failed to examine the applicant’s individual situation adequately, and the effective permanent re-entry ban had been disproportionate.

On 10 December 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held down a Grand Chamber judgement in the case of Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (application no. 15379/16). The case concerned the decision by the Norwegian authorities to allow the adoption of a child by a foster family against his mother’s wishes. The mother, a Somali national who had moved to Norway, did not ask for her son’s return as he had spent a long time with his foster parents, but wished for him to maintain his cultural and religious roots. The Court decided to examine the applicant’s wish to have her son brought up in line with her Muslim faith as an integral part of her complaint under Article 8, as interpreted and applied in the light of Article 9 (freedom of religion). It was not necessary to examine separately any alleged failures to comply with Article 9. The Court pointed out that various interests had been taken into account when placing the applicant’s son in care, not just whether the foster home would correspond to the mother’s cultural and religious background, and that that had complied with her rights. However, the ensuing contact arrangements between mother and son, which had been very limited and had culminated in adoption, had failed to take account of the mother’s interest in allowing her son to retain at least some ties to his cultural and religious origins. Indeed, there had been shortcomings in the overall decision-making process leading to the adoption, which had not given sufficient weight to the mother and child’s mutual interest in maintaining ties. Therefore, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 16 December 2021, the European Court of Human Rights decided to declare the application inadmissible in the case of Alami v. France (application no. 43084/19) on the grounds that the complaint alleging a violation of Article 8 of the Convention was manifestly unfounded. The case concerned a Moroccan applicant who is subject to a deportation order from France. He had submitted that his removal would interfere excessively with his right to respect for his private and family life; he emphasised, in particular, his ties with his children, who are resident in France. The Court noted firstly that the domestic courts before which the applicant had lodged an appeal to have the deportation order annulled had specifically reviewed the proportionality of the infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life. It further noted that, in the balancing exercise carried out by them, these courts had taken into consideration both the arguments presented by the applicant and the seriousness of his criminal convictions. After noting that the applicant’s children were adults and that he did not allege an absence of social and cultural ties with his country of origin, in which he had lived until the age of 24, the Court concluded that, having regard to the considerable discretion (“wide margin of appreciation”) enjoyed by the domestic courts and to the fair balance struck by them between the various interests at stake, there were no serious grounds for departing from the conclusions reached by these courts, to the effect that enforcement of the applicant’s deportation to Morocco would not interfere disproportionately with his right to respect for his private and family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The decision is final.