Conseil d’Etat (Contentieux)
No. 187403
Case M. Cheurfa

11 June 1999

Given that (i) the original of the judgement under attack carries the signatures of the President, the Reporting Judge, and the Clerk, as well as the statement that the judgement was delivered at a public hearing; and (ii) for that reasonthe ground alleging that the judgement was in improper form must be refused;

Given that when it held that the order decreeing the expulsion of M Cheurfa from French territory contained sufficient grounds, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nancy expressed a definitive assessment which, in the absence of a distortion (“dénaturation”), cannot be argued beforethe court of final appeal (“juge de cassation”);

Given that, after having found: “…that M. Cheurfa was guilty in 1986 of the illegal use of drugs and breach of the law relating to the acquisition, possession or use of drugs, for which facts on 11 March 1988 he was condemned by the Criminal Court of Pontoise to a suspended sentence of three months imprisonment, then as well as the acquisition and unauthorised possession and illegal use of drugs, proceeded for several years to deal in these same substances and for this reason was found guilty by a judgement of the Court of Appeal of Versailles”, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nancy could legally deduce from these circumstances that, even if “… the training followed during his imprisonment could have made it possible for him to be reinserted into professional life in good conditions”, the expulsion of M. Cheurfa was an imperative necessity for public safety within the meaning of the provisions of Article26 of the Statute (“ordonnance”) of 2 November 1945;

Given that (i) after finding that M. Cheurfa entered France at the age of eight and that, even though his parents as well as his three brothers and sister lived there, the person in question was a childless bachelor and did not claim that he maintained a family, the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the expulsion order did not infringe his rights to the respect of family life to an extent which went beyond what was necessary for the protection of public order and therefore did not breach the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Liberty; and (ii) in doing all this the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nancy set out all the facts upon which it based a correct legal reasoning;

Given that it flows from all the foregoing that M. Cheurfa has no grounds upon which to claim that the judgement dated 20 February 1997 of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nancy should be quashed;

Concerning the pleadings claiming the application of the provisions of Article 75-I of the Law of 10 July 1991:

Given that (i) pursuant to Article 75-I of the Law of 10 July 1991: “In all cases the court shall order the party who is liable for court costs, or, failing that, the losing party, to pay to the other party the amount it shall fix, towards expenditure incurred and not included in court costs”; and (ii) these provisions make it impossible that the State, which is not the losing party, be ordered to pay to M. Cheurfa the amount he claims for expenditureincurred by him which are not included in court costs;

DECIDES:
Article 1: The petition of M. Cheurfa is rejected;
Article 2: (…)

Back to top

This page last updated Friday, 30-Sep-2005 17:17:06 CDT. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.