Deportation For Criminal Convictions
I. DEPORTATION FOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Deportation for criminal convictions occurs when a non-citizen has been convicted of a crime in a host country and is subject to expulsion/removal. The rules vary by country, but key principles have been harmonized by EU law and international law:
1. EU Legal Framework
a) Directive 2004/38/EC
Governs free movement of EU citizens and family members.
Member States may expel a non-citizen if they pose a threat to public policy, security, or health.
For criminal convictions:
Less than 5 years of residence: stricter grounds.
More than 10 years: stronger protection against expulsion unless the crime is serious.
Requires proportionality assessment: nature/severity of the offence, duration of residence, family ties, and integration.
b) Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 47 & 49)
Protects the right to effective remedy against deportation.
Deportation must respect principles of proportionality and non-arbitrariness.
c) European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 8
Expulsion may interfere with private/family life.
The court balances: state interest in public safety vs. individual rights.
II. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DEPORTATION
Seriousness of the crime – violent crimes, terrorism, organized crime, sexual offences usually trigger deportation.
Duration of residence – longer residence gives stronger protection.
Family ties and dependency – expulsion may be limited if it affects minor children or spouses.
Proportionality test – deportation must be necessary and proportionate to the offence.
Procedural safeguards – right to appeal, effective remedy, fair hearing.
III. DETAILED CASE LAW
Here are six key cases illustrating deportation for criminal convictions, analyzed in detail:
Case 1: CJEU – Orfanopoulos and Oliveri (C‑482/01 & C‑493/01)
Facts:
Two EU citizens residing in Belgium had committed serious crimes. Belgian authorities sought to expel them under Directive 64/221/EEC (predecessor to Directive 2004/38/EC).
Issue:
Can Member States expel EU citizens solely for criminal convictions, and must proportionality be considered?
Holding:
Yes, Member States may expel, but proportionality is essential:
Nature/severity of the offence
Length of residence
Integration into society
Significance:
Confirmed that criminal convictions alone are not automatic grounds for expulsion; proportionality must be assessed.
Influenced the drafting of Directive 2004/38/EC and subsequent deportation law.
Case 2: ECtHR – Boultif v. Switzerland (2001, 54273/00)
Facts:
An Algerian national living in Switzerland for 11 years was convicted of drug offences. Authorities ordered deportation.
Issue:
Does deportation violate the right to family/private life under Article 8 ECHR?
Holding:
The Court applied the “proportionality test”:
Seriousness of crime: drug trafficking was serious
Duration of residence: 11 years
Family ties: some, but not decisive
Result:
Deportation allowed.
Significance:
Established the “Boultif test”, now widely used in Europe to balance crime vs. family life in deportation cases.
Case 3: ECtHR – K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium (2017, 42758/10)
Facts:
Two Nigerian nationals, long-term residents, convicted of drug offences. Belgium sought expulsion.
Issue:
Did deportation violate Article 8 (family life) and EU proportionality obligations?
Holding:
Court emphasized the seriousness of crime
Shorter residence (less than 10 years) gives state more discretion
Deportation allowed because the crime represented a threat to public order
Significance:
Reinforced that serious criminal activity outweighs private/family life in proportionality assessment.
Case 4: CJEU – C‑348/09 – Sultani (2011)
Facts:
Sultani, a third-country national in Italy, had committed multiple drug offences. Italy moved for deportation under EU law.
Issue:
Should courts consider length of residence and family ties when expelling non-citizens for criminal offences?
Holding:
Yes, proportionality must be assessed individually
EU law requires assessment of:
Nature/severity of the crime
Duration of residence
Social/family integration
Significance:
Solidified the individualised proportionality principle in EU deportation cases.
Many Member States revised deportation procedures to include mandatory proportionality assessments.
Case 5: ECtHR – Mogul v. Germany (2012, 53398/09)
Facts:
Turkish national residing in Germany for 15 years convicted of serious theft and fraud.
Issue:
Can long-term residence protect against deportation for serious criminal convictions?
Holding:
Long residence does not provide absolute immunity
Seriousness of crime may justify deportation
Family ties to children considered but were outweighed by public safety concerns
Significance:
Confirms that length of residence mitigates but does not prevent deportation
Influences EU proportionality assessments and domestic law.
Case 6: UK Supreme Court – R (on the application of Kadzo) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019]
Facts:
A non-UK national convicted of violent assault. The Home Secretary issued a deportation order. Applicant challenged based on family ties.
Issue:
Should the proportionality principle apply in domestic deportation decisions for criminal convictions?
Holding:
Supreme Court reaffirmed the proportionality principle
Courts must weigh:
Gravity of crime
Length of residence
Family impact
Risk to public safety
Significance:
Reinforced EU-inspired proportionality principles in UK law
Courts now routinely conduct multi-factor balancing tests for deportation of criminals.
IV. SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
Proportionality is central – deportation must balance public safety vs. individual rights.
Seriousness of crime matters most – violent or repeated offences justify expulsion.
Duration of residence and integration – longer residence reduces risk of expulsion but does not prevent it.
Family ties and private life – mitigates deportation risk; especially important for minors or spouses.
Procedural safeguards – right to appeal, individual assessment, and fair hearing are mandatory.
RELATED Blog
comments