Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

142 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6
“private life” within the meaning of Article 8.” 456 Therefore, expulsion
of a settled migrant, even where he or she has not developed a family
life in the jurisdiction, may constitute an interference with his or her
private life.
a) Expulsion as interference to the right to respect for family
and private life
As noted above, expulsion, as an interference with the right to private
and family life, must be in accordance with the law. This requires
that it must:
• have a basis in domestic law;
• be accessible to the persons concerned;
• be sufficiently precise to enable those concerned to foresee, to a
degree that is reasonable and if necessary with appropriate advice—the
consequences of their actions. 457
The expulsion must also pursue a legitimate aim. The maintenance
and enforcement of immigration control is considered by itself to constitute
a legitimate aim for restrictions to the rights of family and private
life, 458 as are reasons of national security and public order. Merely
claiming that these aims are pursued is not sufficient, however: the
action must be shown to truly advance the aim and be necessary to
reach it. 459
The decision to expel must also be necessary in a democratic society,
which requires that it be justified by a pressing social need,
and proportionate to the aim pursued. The requirement of proportionality
means that there must be relevant and sufficient reasons for
the measure, that no less restrictive measure is feasible; that adequate
safeguards against abuse should be in place; and that the measure
should be imposed by way of a fair procedure. The Human Rights
Committee has found that “in cases where one part of a family must
leave the territory of the State Party while the other part would be entitled
to remain, the relevant criteria for assessing whether or not the
specific interference with family life can be objectively justified must
be considered, on the one hand, in light of the significance of the State
Party’s reasons for the removal of the person concerned and, on the
456 Üner v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 454, para. 59; Onur v. United Kingdom, ECtHR,
op. cit., fn. 196, para. 46; A.W. Khan v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 198, para. 31;
Vasquez v. Switzerland, ECtHR, Application No. 1785/08, Judgment of 26 November 2013,
para. 37.
457 Onur v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 196, para. 48.
458 Nnyanzi v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, para. 76.
459 Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 43, para. 78.