Facts
The complainant, an Argentine national, married a German national in 2004 and received a residence permit EU/EFTA in 2007. After the divorce in 2011 and the dissolution of cohabitation with a Swiss woman in 2015, his residence permit was not extended. The complainant applied for an extension of his residence permit and relied on Art. 50 para. 1 AuG and Art. 8 ECHR.
The lower court dismissed the application, as the complainant did not fall under the provision of Art. 50 para. 1 AuG, as he was not married. The complainant appealed to the Federal Court and argued that he could rely on Art. 50 para. 1 AuG, as he had a de facto life partnership with his Swiss life partner.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the complainant could rely on Art. 50 para. 1 AuG. It found that the provision of Art. 50 para. 1 AuG is limited to spouses and registered partners and that the legislature did not intend to extend the right to family reunification to cohabiting couples.
The Federal Court also examined whether the complainant could rely on Art. 8 ECHR. It found that Art. 8 ECHR protects not only family life but also private life. The Federal Court examined whether the dissolution of cohabitation and the non-extension of the residence permit constituted an interference with the complainant's private life.
The Federal Court found that the duration of residence is of significant importance for assessing the claim to respect for private life. It found that after a lawful…