Facts
The Tunisian national the appellant (born 1992) entered Switzerland on 13 February 2020 to prepare for his marriage to the Swiss national his wife (born 1974). After their marriage on 16 June 2020, he was granted a residence permit to remain with his wife. From 8 September 2020 to 8 January 2021, the spouses lived separately. Following a further period of cohabitation, definitive separation occurred on 8 July 2021 and judicial separation on 14 July 2021.
The Migration and Citizenship Office of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft (AFMB) revoked the appellant’s residence permit by decision of 7 February 2022 and ordered his removal from Switzerland by no later than 10 March 2022. The Government Council of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft upheld this decision by ruling No. 2022-1517 of 18 October 2022. The appellant filed an appeal against this ruling with the Court of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft, Division of Constitutional and Administrative Law, which dismissed the appeal by judgment of 5 April 2023. The appellant then lodged a public-law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 17 August 2023, seeking the quashing of the cantonal judgment and the renewal of his residence permit. He also requested exemption from court fees and an award of party compensation. The suspensive effect of the appeal was granted by the Federal Supreme Court on 18 August 2023.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal. It found that the appeal had been filed within the applicable time limit and in the correct form and that it challenged a final judgment of an upper cantonal court. The appellant claimed to have been a victim of domestic violence and invoked a post-marital hardship case pursuant to Art. 50(1)(b) FNIA. By doing so, he satisfied the requirements for asserting a potential entitlement to a permit, so that the Federal Supreme Court could proceed to examine the appeal on the merits.
The Federal Supreme Court then examined the appellant’s complaint that his right to a fair hearing had been violated because he had not been heard in person regarding his personal circumstances and the alleged psychological violence. The Federal Supreme Court recalled that while the right to a fair hearing includes a right to participate, it does not confer a general entitlement to an oral hearing. Rather, the authority may dispense with a personal hearing in anticipation of the assessment of evidence if the case file and the appellant’s general submissions render such a hearing unnecessary. In the present case, the lower court was entitled to dispense with a personal hearing in view of the lack of specific evidence and the appellant’s general assertions, without violating the right to a fair hearing.
In its examination of the merits, the Federal Supreme Court considered whether the requirements for a post-marital hardship case pursuant to Art. 50(1)(b) FNIA were met. Such a case requires that important personal reasons make a continued stay in Switzerland necessary. The appellant claimed to have been a victim of psychological violence and relied on the victim status arising therefrom. The Federal Supreme Court emphasised that any form of domestic violence, including psychological violence, must be taken seriously. However, the alleged violence must be set out in concrete and comprehensible terms and supported by appropriate evidence. The appellant was unable to present any specific incidents or sufficient evidence of the…