Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Article 9 - Right to marry and right to found a family
Key facts of the case:
The case originated in the complaint filed by a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan A.J. against the Migration Department under the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the latters’s decision to refuse to grant him temporary leave of residence in the Republic of Lithuania on the grounds that his marriage to the citizen of Lithuania R.J. was fictitious and was concluded with a purpose to achieve "migrationary advantage“. The complainant appealed the decision to Vilnius District Administrative Court which found the deicison of the Migration Department unfounded, revoked the decision and obliged the respondent to examine the complainant‘s application anew.
The first instance court concluded that whilst issuing a final decision or reaching the conclusions regarding the allegedly fictious marriage, no reasonable doubts can be left regarding the fictiniousness of a specific marriage, because otherwise irreparable damage might be inflicted on human rights, or more specifically human right to protection of his/her private life, enshrined, inter alia, in Article 8 of the the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and would infringe the right to a marriage, enshrined, inter alia, in Article 12 of the Convention, Article 9 of the Charter.
The respondent Migration Department appealed the decision of the first instance court to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The court raised the following key legal questions: a) whether the first instance court has fully asssesed all the relevant evidence and the arguments of the parties in the case regarding the alleged ficticiousness of the marriage in question; b) the legal grounds for the complainant to seek temporary leave of residence in Lithuania, that is, family reunification.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania found that the decision of the first instance court to annul the refusal to issue temporary leave of residence to the complainant was lawful and well-founded, and taken by carefully assessing all the relevant circumstances of the case, the evidence provided to the court by the parties and the testimonies of witnesses. The court concluded that the Migration Department failed to fully investigate all the relevant circumstances of the application and examine in depth the individual family relations, and therefore reached an unfounded conclusion that the marriage was fictitious. The court also noted that the Migration Department, whilst deciding on the complainant’s application for temporary leave of residence, had to take into account the grounds on which the complainant sought such leave, that is, family reunification, as respect for family life is one of the fundamental rights, enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention and Article 7 of the Charter.
7. The court, whilst evaluating and outlining the relevant circumstances, related with the establishment of the fictiniouness of a marriage, cannot be guided only by a formal point of view. Whilst issuing the final decision or reaching the conclusion with regards to the fictitiousness of the marriage, no reasonable doubts can be left in relation to the fictiniousnes of a specific marriage, or else harm could be inflicted on the protection of human rights, more specifically – the right to protection of a person‘s private life, enshrined, inter alia, in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and would infringe the right to marry, enshrined, inter alia, in Article 12 of the Convention, Aricle 9 of the Charter.
(...)
28. In the case under consideration, it is to be noted that, whilst deciding on the complainant‘s application to issue a temporary leave of residence in the Republic of Lithuania, the Migration Department had to take into account the grounds, on which he sought the leave of residence, that is, family reunification. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistenly emphasised that respect for family life, as it is foreseen in Article 8 of the Convention, is a fundamental principle, which must be respected and ensured. Furthermore, the preamble to the 15 March 2006 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 562/2006, establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) provides that this regulation respects fundamental rights and complies with the principles, recognised in the Charter, that is, its provisions must be interpreted in a way that does not violate Charter provisions. It is to be noted that Article 7 of the Charter establishes the right to respect for family life, whereas Article 52 provides that in so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. Although the right to family life is not absolute and can be restricted, it must however, be assesed in every case, whether these restrictions are necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought. Such decisions, if they can restrict the rights guaranteed by Part 1 Article 8 of the Convention, must be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought (see for example, 26 September 1997 judgmment in the case of Mehemi v France (Application No. 25017/94)). Each situation must be assessed according to its circumstances, and it must be determined whether the principle of proportionality has been observed when restricting a foreign spouse‘s right to remain in the country (see for example, 2001 judgmnent in Boultif v Switzerland (Application No 54273); 199 judgment in Boujlifa v France (Application No. 25404/94)).
7. Teismas, vertindamas ir apibendrindamas aktualias aplinkybes, susijusias su santuokos fiktyvumo nustatymu, negali vadovautis vien formaliu požiūriu. Priimant galutinį sprendimą arba darant išvadas dėl santuokos fiktyvumo nustatymo negali likti pagrįstų abejonių dėl konkrečios santuokos fiktyvumo, priešingu atveju būtų padaryta žala žmogaus teisių apsaugai, o konkrečiai – žmogaus teisei į privataus gyvenimo apsaugą, įtvirtintai, be kita ko, Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos (toliau – ir Konvencija) 8 straipsnyje, Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos (toliau – ir Chartija) 7 straipsnyje, bei pažeistų asmens teisę į santuoką, įtvirtintą, be kita ko, Konvencijos 12 straipsnyje, Chartijos 9 straipsnyje.
28. Nagrinėjamu atveju pažymėtina, kad, spręsdamas dėl pareiškėjo prašymo išduoti leidimą laikinai gyventi Lietuvos Respublikoje, Departamentas turėjo atsižvelgti į pagrindą, dėl kurio jis prašė šį leidimą išduoti, t. y. į tai, jog pareiškėjas siekė šeimos susijungimo. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas yra ne kartą pabrėžęs, jog pagarba šeimos gyvenimui, kaip tai numatyta Konvencijos 8 straipsnyje, yra fundamentalus principas, kuris turi būti gerbiamas ir užtikrinamas. Be to, Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos 2006 m. kovo 15 d. reglamento (EB) Nr. 562/2006, nustatančio taisyklių, reglamentuojančių asmenų judėjimą per sienas, Bendrijos kodeksą, (toliau – ir Šengeno sienų kodeksas) preambulė nustato, kad šiame teisės akte gerbiamos pagrindinės teisės ir laikomasi principų, pripažintų Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijoje, t. y. jo nuostatos turi būti aiškinamos taip, kad nepažeistų Chartijos nuostatų. Pažymėtina, jog Chartijos 7 straipsnis įtvirtina teisę į šeimos gyvenimo gerbimą, o 52 straipsnis nustato, kad Chartijoje nurodytų teisių, atitinkančių Konvencijos garantuojamas teises, esmė ir taikymo sritis yra tokia, kaip nustatyta Konvencijoje. Nors teisė į šeimos gyvenimą nėra absoliuti ir gali būti ribojama, tačiau kiekvienu atveju turi būti įvertinta, ar tokie ribojimai yra būtini demokratinėje visuomenėje bei proporcingi siekiamam teisėtam tikslui. Tokie sprendimai, jei jie gali apriboti Konvencijos 8 straipsnio 1 dalies garantuojamas teises, turi būti būtini demokratinėje visuomenėje ir proporcingi siekiamam teisėtam tikslui (žr., pvz., EŽTT 1997 m. rugsėjo 26 d. sprendimą byloje Mehemi prieš Prancūziją (pareiškimo Nr. 25017/94)). Reikia vertinti kiekvieną situaciją pagal jos aplinkybes, nustatyti, ar nebuvo pažeistas proporcingumo principas nustatant apribojimus užsieniečiui sutuoktiniui gyventi valstybėje (žr., pvz., EŽTT 2001 m. sprendimą byloje Boultif prieš Šveicariją (pareiškimo Nr. 54273); 1997 m. sprendimą byloje Boujlifa prieš Prancūziją (pareiškimo Nr. 25404/94)).
