FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38821/97
by Lilia, Julia and Eleonora ALIMZHANOVA and Alexjs LISIKOV
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting on 24 August 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrsE. Palm,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrT. Pantiru, Judges,
withMrM. O’Boyle, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 11 July 1997 by Lilia, Julia and Eleonora Alimzhanova and Alexjs Lisikov against Sweden and registered on 28 November 1997 under file no. 38821/97;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the factual information submitted by the respondent Government on 15 February 1999 and to the information in reply submitted by the applicants on 3 March and 28 May 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant was born in 1959 and the fourth applicant in 1961. They were both nationals of the former Soviet Union. The second and third applicants are their children, born in 1990 and 1991 respectively. Apparently, all applicants are now stateless persons.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The first and fourth applicants married in 1989 and lived together in Latvia. However, the third applicant was born in Kazakhstan where the first applicant had lived before moving to Latvia. In May 1994 the fourth applicant was registered as a permanent resident in Latvia, but the other applicants were denied such status. As their rights were subjected to several restrictions in Latvia, the applicants later decided to leave the country. On 25 October 1995 they arrived in Sweden and requested asylum and residence permits. They stated, inter alia, that they had been discriminated against in Latvia and that, if returned to that country, they would be expelled to Kazakhstan where they would risk persecution.
On 7 December 1995 the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) rejected the applicants’ applications and ordered their expulsion to Latvia. On 2 December 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden) rejected their appeal and ordered their expulsion to either Latvia or Kazakhstan. On 4 February 1997 the Appeals Board rejected a new application submitted by the applicants.
Later, the marriage between the first and fourth applicants were dissolved by a Latvian court. They agreed on joint custody of their children. Apparently, the children have since lived with their mother, the first applicant, but their father, the fourth applicant, have maintained close contacts with them. In March 1998 the fourth applicant married a Finnish national living in Sweden. Having regard to this connection to Sweden, the Aliens Appeals Board, by a decision of 22 June 1998, granted him a temporary residence permit of five years’ duration. The permit is renewable.
The other three applicants lodged yet another application for residence permits with the Appeals Board. On 4 August 1998 the Board decided to stay the enforcement of the expulsion orders and on 29 April 1999 it granted them permanent residence permits. The Board considered that they were not in need of protection in Sweden. However, the two children had been living in Sweden since 1995 and attended Swedish school. They had regular contacts with both parents and the parents had agreed that those contacts should continue. Having regard to the best interests of the children, the Board accordingly found that the children and their mother should be granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain about the original decisions to refuse them asylum and residence permits in Sweden. The first three applicants further complain that they were later granted residence permits solely on the basis of the children’s connection to their father. Consequently, the Swedish authorities have failed to recognise the fact that their human rights
were violated in Latvia and that, for that reason, they are in need of protection in Sweden. They claim that they should be considered as stateless refugees and be furnished with refugee travel documents. The applicants invoke Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 11 July 1997 and registered on 28 November 1997.
On 2 February 1999, the judge designated as Judge Rapporteur in the case requested, pursuant to Rule 49 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure, the respondent Government to submit certain factual information.
The Government submitted the requested information on 15 February 1999. The applicants replied on 3 March and 28 May 1999.
THE LAW
The applicants complain about the original decisions to refuse them asylum or residence permits in Sweden. Further, the first three applicants complain that the Swedish authorities have failed to recognise that they are stateless refugees and, as such, in need of protection in Sweden and entitled to refugee travel documents.
However, the Court notes that, by decisions of 22 June 1998 and 29 April 1999, the Aliens Appeals Board granted the applicants permits to reside in Sweden. Accordingly, the applicants will not be expelled from Sweden and the children will not be separated from their parents. Further, the Convention does not guarantee a right to asylum or refugee status but only prohibits the expulsion of persons to a country where they may be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Whether or not the applicants would risk being subjected to such treatment in Latvia or Kazakhstan, the above decisions preclude their return to those countries and thus afford them sufficient protection. The Court concludes that the applicants’ submissions fail to disclose any appearance of a violation of the Articles invoked.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Michael O’BoyleJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy