issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 159 (2023)
30.05.2023
Decision revoking Moroccan national’s residence permit in the Netherlands
insufficiently took into account his mental illness
the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the revocation of Mr Azzaqui’s residence permit in 2018 and a ten-year entry
ban to the Netherlands on the grounds that he was a threat to public order. He had been convicted
of several crimes, including rape in 1996. He had a personality disorder when he committed the
latter crime, and has spent most of the following years in a custodial clinic.
The Court found that the Dutch authorities had failed to properly balance the interests at stake. In
particular, they had not sufficiently taken into account that the applicant had been suffering from a
serious mental illness, which had reduced his criminal culpability in the rape proceedings. Nor had
they considered other personal circumstances, such as the progress he had made since his last
offence and that the treatment he had been following was aimed at reintegration into Dutch society.
Principal facts
The applicant, Karim Azzaqui, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1972 and entered the
Netherlands in 1982 to live with his father. In 1991 he obtained a permanent residence permit
(vergunning tot vestiging).
From 1987 Mr Azzaqui was convicted of multiple crimes, ending with rape in 1996. For the latter
offence, the criminal court found that he had diminished criminal culpability because of a
personality disorder. He has spent most of the following years in a custodial clinic
(terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege).
In 2018 the Deputy Minister of Justice and Security decided to revoke Mr Azzaqui’s residence permit
and impose on him a ten-year entry ban to the Netherlands on the grounds that he was a threat to
public order. In his decision he acknowledged that Mr Azzaqui had been living in and had built up
social ties in the Netherlands for a very long time, but considered that that was outweighed by the
seriousness of his crimes, the extensions to the court-ordered confinement in a custodial clinic and
the risk of his reoffending. The Minister also found that he was an adult male who could fend for
himself if repatriated to Morocco and that he had family there.
This decision was subsequently assessed and upheld by the national courts.
Pending these revocation proceedings Mr Azzaqui, who had been conditionally released in 2016 into
an assisted living facility for consistent good behaviour, had had a relapse into substance abuse.
According to the probation services this was because he had been severely disturbed by the Minister
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
