AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 26336/95
by Henny Leo ABOIKONIE and Georgette Fidelia READ
against the Netherlands
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
12 January 1998, the following members being present:
Mr S. TRECHSEL, President
MM J.-C. GEUS
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
MM H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
P. LORENZEN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
MM R. NICOLINI
A. ARABADJIEV
Mr M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 October 1994
by Henny Leo ABOIKONIE and Georgette Fidelia READ against the
Netherlands and registered on 27 January 1995 under file No. 26336/95;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
8 October 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is a Surinamese citizen, born in 1955 and at
present residing in Suriname. The second applicant is the first
applicant's wife. She was born in 1955 and resides in Rotterdam. The
application is also introduced on behalf of the couple's four minor
children, Gregory, born in 1979, Furgill, born in 1985, Bjorn, born in
1990, and Morena, born in 1993. The children live with their mother in
the Netherlands. The second applicant and the children have Dutch
nationality. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by
Mr. J.B.J.G.M. Schyns, a lawyer practising in Venlo, the Netherlands.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
The first applicant entered the Netherlands in May 1987 and
requested asylum, or alternatively a residence permit for reasons of
a humanitarian nature, on 4 June 1987. He pointed out that he had
worked from 1982 until 1985 for the security service of the Surinamese
army. During a certain period he had been body-guard to a Lieutenant-
Colonel, Mr B. In 1985 he had deserted and had joined Ronnie
Brunswijk's Jungle Command. In April 1987 he had fled Suriname. He
submitted that he feared persecution by the military under command of
Bouterse.
The second applicant arrived in the Netherlands together with the
two elder children in August 1987 and requested asylum or residence
permits for reasons of a humanitarian nature in December of that year.
On 9 March 1990 the first applicant was convicted of drug
offences by the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Roermond
and given a suspended sentence of three weeks' imprisonment and a fine
of 400 Dutch guilders to be replaced by eight days' imprisonment in
case of non-payment.
On 20 September 1990 the first applicant was convicted of
attempted grievous bodily harm by the Regional Court of Roermond and
sentenced to a suspended term of eight months' imprisonment.
On 5 October 1990 the State Secretary for Justice
(Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the requests of the first
applicant. As regards the request for asylum, the State Secretary for
Justice considered that it had not been established that the first
applicant had substantial grounds to fear persecution by the Surinamese
military. As regards his request for a residence permit, the State
Secretary for Justice recalled that pursuant to Section 11 para. 5 of
the Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet) the granting of a residence permit
could be refused on grounds of public interest, whereas the Dutch
authorities in applying Section 11 para. 5 of the Aliens Act followed
a restrictive immigration policy in view of the population and
employment situation in the Netherlands. The State Secretary
furthermore considered that since the first applicant's presence in the
Netherlands did not serve any specific Dutch interest, and since no
compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature were considered to exist
on the basis of which he could be granted a residence permit, the first
applicant did not fulfil the conditions for obtaining a residence
permit.
On 14 November 1990 the first applicant requested the State
Secretary for Justice to review (herziening) this decision. In support
of his request, the first applicant submitted a page from a book
entitled "Wanted Terrorists". On this page his photograph was printed
and his name was mentioned.
On 27 February 1991 the first applicant was convicted of drug
offences by the Regional Court of Breda and sentenced to eighteen
months' imprisonment.
The State Secretary for Justice did not decide on the first
applicant's request for revision within the statutory period of three
months, which under Netherlands law constituted an implied rejection
of this request (fictieve weigering). Consequently, on 12 March 1991
the first applicant appealed to the Judicial Division (Afdeling
Rechtspraak) of the Council of State (Raad van State).
On 10 March 1992 the first applicant was heard by the Advisory
Committee for Aliens Affairs (Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken)
in connection with his request for revision.
The Advisory Committee proposed to the State Secretary for
Justice that the applicant's request for revision be rejected. The
Advisory Committee found that the applicant's account was vague and
contained inconsistencies which seriously affected his credibility.
Furthermore, it took into account that the political situation in
Suriname had improved. In this respect the Committee referred to the
arrangements concerning the peace settlement which had been agreed
between Bouterse and Brunswijk in March 1991.
On 13 April 1992 the first applicant was convicted of
insubordination by the Regional Court of Roermond and sentenced to a
fine of 250 Dutch guilders to be replaced by five days' imprisonment
in case of non-payment.
In the proceedings before the Judicial Division the State
Secretary for Justice referred to the opinion of the Advisory Committee
and submitted that the first applicant was not a refugee. On
15 September 1993 the Judicial Division quashed the implied decision
of the State Secretary on the first applicant's request for revision.
The Judicial Division considered that the contested decision dated from
before the changed political situation and that therefore these
developments should not have been taken into account. Furthermore, the
fact that the State Secretary for Justice had failed to undertake any
investigation into the page of the book entitled "Wanted Terrorists"
was considered to constitute negligence.
Meanwhile, on 25 August 1992, the State Secretary for Justice had
granted the second applicant and the children a residence permit. On
22 October 1992, they obtained Dutch nationality.
On 10 November 1993 the first applicant was convicted of assault
by the Regional Court Magistrate (politierechter) of Roermond and given
a suspended sentence of one week's imprisonment.
As a result of the decision of the Judicial Division, the State
Secretary for Justice had to decide anew on the first applicant's
request for revision. On 14 December 1993 this request was rejected.
The State Secretary referred to the opinion of the Advisory Committee
on Aliens Affairs and, as regards Article 3 of the Convention,
indicated that the political situation in Suriname had improved. As
regards the page from the book or pamphlet entitled "Wanted
Terrorists", the State Secretary noted that it had appeared from
information from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that it was not known
whether, following the publication of the pamphlet in 1987, it had
actually led to any person being arrested. Two people named on the list
were being kept in detention at the time of the decision but their
detention related to non-political offences. Insofar as the page or
pamphlet had ever served as a basis for arrests, it was excluded that
this was so at the present time. Since the present Government of
Suriname had never considered the document as legally valid it had not
deemed it necessary to withdraw it. The State Secretary further held
that even if the expulsion of the first applicant constituted an
interference with his rights under Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention
this interference was justified under para. 2 of this provision in view
of the fact that the first applicant had been convicted of several
serious criminal offences. The State Secretary decided, furthermore,
that the first applicant was not allowed to remain in the Netherlands
pending any appeal proceedings to be instituted by him.
In December 1993 or January 1994 the first applicant was
interviewed by a member of the Royal Military Constabulary (Koninklijke
Marechaussee), and a customs officer. They informed the first applicant
that they worked for the so called "COPA-team" (Colombia Paramaribo-
team) whose task it was to investigate possible drug transactions
between Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. They asked the first
applicant to supply information about Mr B., who had been arrested and
convicted of drug transactions in Miami.
On 19 January 1994 the first applicant filed an appeal with the
Administrative Law Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak), the
successor of the Judicial Division, of the Council of State against the
rejection of his request for revision.
On 27 January 1994 the first applicant, in interim injunction
proceedings (kort geding), requested the President of the Regional
Court of The Hague sitting at (nevenzittingsplaats) 's-Hertogenbosch
to issue an injunction against the State in respect of his expulsion.
On 21 February 1994 the first and second applicants were married
in Venlo, the Netherlands.
The President of the Regional Court denied the request for an
injunction on 24 March 1994. Insofar as the first applicant had invoked
Article 3 of the Convention, the President found no substantial grounds
on the basis of which a genuine and personal risk of inhuman treatment
in Suriname could be assumed to exist. As regards the complaint under
Article 8 of the Convention, the President considered that, if there
was family life and the personal interests of the applicant were
weighed against the public interest, an interference with the rights
under Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention would be justified under
para. 2 of this provision as being necessary in a democratic society
for the prevention of disorder or crime. The applicant filed an appeal
against this judgment with the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The
Hague.
On 10 May 1994 both applicants again requested the President of
the Regional Court of The Hague sitting at 's-Hertogenbosch to issue
an injunction against the State in respect of the imminent expulsion
of the first applicant. In support of their request they submitted that
the following new facts should be taken into account: (1) a press
release dated 3 March 1994 had revealed that the State Secretary for
Justice had allowed six other former members of the Jungle Command to
remain in the Netherlands pending their appeal proceedings, and (2) the
first applicant had learned that the information which he had supplied
to the COPA-team in December 1993 or January 1994 had been used in
preliminary judicial investigations initiated against several high
ranking members of the Suriname military who were suspected of being
involved in the transport of drugs.
The President declared the request of the first applicant
inadmissible on 18 July 1994, considering that the applicant could not
claim that the facts which he had submitted were relevant new facts.
In the first place the President considered that since both the
questioning by the COPA-team and the press release dated from before
the interim injunction proceedings of 24 March 1994, he could have
raised those matters there. Secondly, as the State Secretary for
Justice had indicated that the information which the first applicant
had given to the COPA-team was only of minor importance, the President
found that there were no substantial grounds militating against the
expulsion of the first applicant prior to the decision of the Court of
Appeal. The request of the second applicant was rejected on the same
grounds. An appeal against this decision to the Court of Appeal of The
Hague is pending but enjoys no suspensive effect.
On 18 October 1994 the first applicant was placed in detention
with a view to his expulsion (vreemdelingenbewaring). On
20 October 1994 he was expelled to Suriname.
On the same day the first applicant requested the President of
the Regional Court of The Hague in interim injunction proceedings to
order the State to enable his return to the Netherlands and,
subsequently, to allow him to remain in the Netherlands pending the
appeal proceedings on his requests for asylum or a residence permit.
In support of this request the first applicant argued that the
following relevant new facts and circumstances had occurred after the
last interim injunction proceedings of 18 July 1994:
(1) on 29 July 1994 an anonymous civil servant of the Surinamese
Department of Foreign Affairs had told a Dutch journalist that the
applicant would be dead within six months of his arrival in Suriname;
(2) at a public political meeting Bouterse was said to have issued
threats against the first applicant in connection with the fact that
the first applicant had supplied the Dutch authorities with information
concerning Mr B.;
(3) on 17 October 1994 the Surinamese police had found the body of
a Mr M. in the Brokopondo reservoir. He had suffered a broken neck. In
the 1980's Mr M. had been a chief officer in Ronnie Brunswijk's Jungle
Command and at a later date he had had connections with Dutch Military
Intelligence. The first applicant submitted that his position was
comparable to that of Mr M.;
(4) applications had been sent to the European Commission of Human
Rights and the National Ombudsman. On the morning of 20 October 1994
the Commission had informally requested the Netherlands Government not
to expel the first applicant; and
(5) in September 1994 members of the Dutch parliament had asked the
State Secretary for Justice a number of questions about the expulsion
of the first applicant.
The request for an interim injunction was declared inadmissible
by the President of the Regional Court on 22 November 1994. The
President considered that the facts adduced by the applicant had either
not been substantiated or were not relevant. As regards (1), the
President noted that the Surinamese Minister for Foreign Affairs had
denied that any such comment had been made by one of his officials. In
respect of (5), the President held that on 20 October 1994 there had
been no concrete indications to the effect that Mr M. had been murdered
and that the exact cause of death of Mr M. had still not been
established at the date of the hearing, ie. on 15 November 1994.
Moreover, the President did not agree with the first applicant that his
situation was comparable to that of Mr M., who had had Dutch
nationality and had gone to Suriname voluntarily. Contrary to the first
applicant, it was assumed that Mr M. had been acting as an informer of
the Dutch Military Intelligence Service for years. Also, Mr M. had held
a position within the Jungle Command which was different from that of
the first applicant who had not played a role of any significance
within this organisation.
On 23 November 1995 the Court of Appeal of The Hague upheld the
contested judgment that had been handed down in interim injunction
proceedings on 24 March 1994 by the President of the Regional Court of
The Hague sitting at 's-Hertogenbosch.
The appeal against the decision of the State Secretary for
Justice of 14 December 1993 rejecting the first applicant's request for
revision was examined by the Administrative Disputes Division on
4 April 1997 and rejected on 2 July 1997. In view of the peace accord
concluded between Bouterse and Brunswijk in March 1991, the Division
held that the first applicant had not substantiated his claim that at
the time of the impugned decision he had had a well-founded fear of
persecution because of his membership of the security service until
1985 or because of his involvement with the Jungle Command from 1985
until 1987. The Division further found that the State Secretary had not
acted unreasonably when he, basing himself on information from the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, had deemed it unlikely that the page from
the book "Wanted Terrorists" indicated that the first applicant was
wanted by the Surinamese authorities. Moreover, it did not follow from
the sole fact that the first applicant had been interviewed by members
of the COPA-team that he should be considered a refugee. In this
respect the Division noted that the first applicant had failed to give
any indication - by requesting a confidential examination of his case,
for example - of the contents of these interviews.
As regards the first applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the
Convention, the Division held that there had been no interference with
the first applicant's rights under this provision since the impugned
decision had not deprived him of a residence permit which entitled him
to have family life in the Netherlands. The Division further found that
there were no special facts or circumstances which imposed a positive
obligation on the authorities to grant him a residence permit. In this
respect the Division took account of the fact that the first applicant
had been convicted of assault and drug offences.
In support of their application the applicants have submitted,
inter alia, a draft report on this case, drawn up by the Judicial
Commission on Civilian Rights of the European Parliament on
14 November 1994. They submit that the conclusion contained in this
report, to the effect that the Government of the Netherlands have
violated human rights, was unanimously adopted by the Judicial
Commission during its meeting held from 31 January to 2 February 1995.
The applicants further submit that other former members of the Jungle
Command have been allowed to await the outcome of their asylum
procedures in the Netherlands.
In their written observations, the Government have submitted in
respect of the death of Mr M. that the official report, the death
certificate and a statement by a close friend indicate that Mr M. died
of exhaustion as he tried to swim to the bank after his boat had
overturned during a fishing trip.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain that the first applicant's expulsion to
Suriname exposed him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicants also complain that the expulsion of the first
applicant constituted an interference with their right to respect for
their family and private life in contravention of Article 8 of the
Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 20 October 1994 and registered
on 27 January 1995.
On 20 October 1994 the applicants requested the Commission to
apply Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. On the same day,
the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36.
On 5 July 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government.
The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 October
1996. The applicants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to
submit observations in reply.
THE LAW
1. The applicants allege that the expulsion of the first applicant
to Suriname exposed him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. Article 3 (Art. 3)
provides as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment."
The Government are of the opinion that, insofar as it can be
assumed that the first applicant worked for the army security service
and was involved in the Jungle Command, it cannot be said that he ran
a real risk of inhuman treatment given his personal circumstances and
relatively minor role, seen against the background of the situation in
Suriname as a whole and the peace accord reached in 1991 between army
commander Bouterse and Jungle Command leader Brunswijk.
The Government further argue that there was no evidence that
Mr M., whose body had been found in a reservoir, had been murdered.
They believe that there is no indication that people whose picture and
name appeared on the document "Wanted Terrorists" have encountered
problems because of their inclusion in that list. They also note that
the Surinamese Minister for Foreign Affairs has denied that one of his
officials made a comment concerning the threat to the first applicant's
life. Moreover, the first applicant has proved unable to substantiate
his claim that Bouterse openly threatened his life at a meeting of his
party. The Government do not believe that the report drawn up by the
European Parliament's Judicial Commission on Civilian Rights presents
a balanced picture of the relevant facts and circumstances since it is
clearly primarily based on information provided by the first applicant
himself.
As regards the first applicant having acted as informer to the
COPA-team, the Government submit that the public prosecutor under whose
responsibility the interviews with the first applicant took place has
confirmed that the first applicant's role had been minimal. The
Government point out that the first applicant has not indicated, even
in general terms, what information he is supposed to have passed on.
The Government deny that when a number of other former members
of the Jungle Command were permitted to await the outcome of their
asylum procedures in the Netherlands similar cases were treated
differently. There were also two former members who, like the first
applicant, were not allowed to remain in the Netherlands.
Finally, the Government stress that the utmost care was exercised
in respect of the first applicant's expulsion. The Dutch embassy was
informed and an investigation was instituted in Suriname into any
circumstances that might make the expulsion inadvisable. In this
process, consideration was also given to the views of the Surinamese
human rights association Moiwana '86. It was concluded, however, that
reprisals from the Surinamese Government could be ruled out.
The Commission recalls that the Contracting States have the
right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject
to their treaty obligations including Article 3 (Art. 3), to control
the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (cf. Eur. Court HR,
Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October
1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102). Furthermore it must be noted
that the right to political asylum is not contained in either the
Convention or its Protocols. However, an expulsion decision may give
rise to an issue under the Convention, where substantial grounds have
been shown for believing that the person concerned faced a real risk
of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled (op.
cit., p. 34, para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment is not in
itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of this provision (op. cit.,
p. 37, para. 111).
The Commission also recalls that ill-treatment must attain a
minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article
3 (Art. 3). An assessment of whether such a treatment is in breach of
this provision must be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character
of this Article (op. cit., p. 36, paras. 107 and 108).
The Commission has examined the applicants' submissions and the
documents in support of their application. It considers that the
evidence before it concerning the first applicant's background and the
general situation in Suriname at the time of his expulsion does not
establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that the
first applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to
treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention and that the
Dutch authorities should thus have refrained from expelling him. In
reaching this conclusion the Commission notes the following.
It appears that the first applicant's claims have been examined
carefully and extensively on a number of occasions by the Dutch
administration and judiciary. During these proceedings the first
applicant has not, however, refuted the findings by the Dutch
authorities concerning the page from the book called "Wanted
Terrorists". Similarly he has not contended before the Commission that
the information obtained by the Dutch authorities about the death of
Mr M. was incorrect. Moreover, the first applicant has not submitted
any evidence from witnesses or otherwise of his claims that a
Surinamese civil servant said that the first applicant would be dead
within six months of his arrival in Suriname, and that Bouterse issued
threats against him at a public political meeting. He has, furthermore,
failed to give any indication of the relevance of the information he
is supposed to have passed on to the COPA-team.
In these circumstances the Commission considers that the first
applicant has not substantiated his claims that his expulsion to
Suriname would be contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention
either because of his involvement with the Jungle Command or because
of his having passed on information to the COPA-team.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicants further complain that the expulsion of the first
applicant constituted an interference with their right to respect for
their family and private life in contravention of Article 8 (Art. 8)
of the Convention. Article 8 (Art. 8), insofar as relevant, reads as
follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with
the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with
the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others."
The Government submit in the first place that there has been no
interference with the applicants' right to respect for family or
private life since the first applicant had never been granted any
residence rights in the Netherlands which had allowed him to enjoy
family life there in the first place. They further argue that they were
under no positive obligation to grant the first applicant a residence
permit in order to enable him to enjoy family life in the Netherlands.
In this respect they refer to the fact that the first applicant has
been convicted of public order offences on a number of occasions. In
the Government's submission, the first applicant's interests in
prolonging family life in the Netherlands do not outweigh the interests
of the State in maintaining public order. In carrying out this
balancing exercise the Government have taken into account the ties
which the first and second applicants may still be assumed to have with
Suriname.
Even supposing there was an interference, the Government submit
that the expulsion was justified under the second paragraph of
Article 8 (Art. 8).
The Commission recalls its established case-law which holds that
while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee
a right to enter or remain in a particular country, issues may arise
where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close
relatives reside or have the right to reside (see eg. No. 7816/77, Dec.
19.5.77, D.R. 9, p. 219; No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; and
No. 9285/81, Dec. 8.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205).
However, the Commission notes that the State's obligation to
admit to its territory aliens who are relatives of persons resident
there will vary according to the circumstances of the case. Regard must
be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing
interests of the individual and of the community as a whole (Eur. Court
HR, Gül v. Switzerland judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I,
No. 3, p. 175, para. 38). The Court has held that Article 8 (Art. 8)
does not impose a general obligation on States to respect the choice
of residence of a married couple or to accept the non-national spouse
for settlement in that country (Eur. Court HR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and
Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no.
94, p. 94, para. 68).
The Commission considers that it need not decide whether the
refusal by the Dutch authorities to grant the first applicant a
residence permit constituted an interference with the applicants' right
to respect for their family or private life in the present case, since
such an interference would in any event be justified under para. 2 of
Article 8 (Art. 8-2).
In this respect the Commission observes that in view of the
criminal offences committed by the first applicant, the Dutch
authorities could reasonably have come to the conclusion that the
interests of the State in maintaining public order outweighed the
interests of the applicants in being able to enjoy family life in the
Netherlands. After all, it does not follow from the fact that the
second applicant and the children have (acquired) Dutch nationality
that the only way for them to enjoy family life with the first
applicant would be for the Dutch authorities to grant the first
applicant residence in the Netherlands. In this respect the Commission
recalls that in previous cases the factor of citizenship has not been
considered of particular significance (eg. No. 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87,
unpublished, where the Commission found it compatible with Article 8
(Art. 8) to expect children of unlawful overstayers to follow their
parents even if they had acquired rights of abode in the deporting
country; and Nos. 23938/94 and 24865/94, Dec. of 23.10.95, unpublished,
where the Commission found no material distinction as to whether the
children had acquired citizenship by ius soli or ius sanguinis).
As regards the second applicant and the children, the Commission
notes that there are no obstacles effectively preventing them from
joining the first applicant and establishing their family life in
Suriname. In this respect the Commission observes that the second
applicant and the two elder children are of Surinamese origin and had
lived in Suriname all their lives before coming to the Netherlands in
1987. The Commission further notes that the two younger children are
of an adaptable age.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the expulsion of the first
applicant does not disclose a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention.
It follows that also this part of the application must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M. de SALVIA S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy