AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14457/88
by B. and others
against the Netherlands
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 16 December 1988, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER 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 24 November
1988 by B. and others against the Netherlands and registered on 8
December 1988 under file No. 14457/88;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are 13 persons of Surinamese nationality who,
on the date of registration of this application were all resident in
the Netherlands. Their particulars are set out in the appendix.
Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. V.M. WESKI, a
lawyer practising in Rotterdam.
The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as
follows:
Surinam became independant of the Netherlands in 1975. In
accordance with the agreements concluded at the time between the two
states, the applicants became citizens of Surinam.
In 1982 a military coup took place which overthrew the
democratic civilian Government in Surinam. Soon thereafter a flow of
political refugees commenced from Surinam to the Netherlands. In 1985
the resistance against the military Government grew into a civil war.
With many others, the applicants fled Surinam at this time.
Due to the large influx of Surinamese, and the difficult
situation in that country, the Netherlands Government decided in
December 1986 not to apply the usual rules governing the granting of
residence permits. Instead, all incoming Surinamese, including the
applicants, were to be tolerated in the Netherlands until such time as
the political situation in Surinam would have stabilised. Their
requests for political asylum and residence permits were suspended for
the time being. Only obviously serious cases were still examined and
only in such cases were residence permits granted.
In February 1988, the Netherlands Government announced that they
considered the situation in Surinam to have calmed down and that the
country was on the way to the re-establishment of democracy.
Therefore, from that moment on the unprocessed residence permit
requests of the approximately 5.000 so-called "tolerated Surinamese"
(gedoog-Surinamers) would be taken up and decided upon.
In consequence, those applicants who had already been denied
asylum in 1986 but who were not expelled under the toleration policy,
and those who had arrived in the Netherlands during the toleration
policy, were each informed after May 1988 that they did not comply with
Dutch immigration regulations and that, therefore, they would have to
leave the Netherlands.
Some of the applicants have instituted summary proceedings
before the President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)
of the Hague requesting suspensive effect for the duration of their
appeal proceedings in the Netherlands. They have presented their
objections to their expulsion, but these requests have all been
denied.
The other applicants have had their appeals to the Council of
State decided. They have presented their objections to not being
granted asylum and a residence permit, but their appeals have all been
rejected late in 1988.
A Surinamese man who was not one of the applicants but who had
a similar background to the applicants', returned to Surinam and was
found dead in prison on 7 November 1988 under allegedly suspicious
circumstances soon after his arrival in Surinam.
THE COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain that they are being sent back to
Surinam by the Netherlands, in the execution of a policy of expelling
all Surinamese who were tolerated in the Netherlands between late 1986
and February 1988. They allege that this expulsion is collective in
character and that the standard-form decisions of expulsion with the
applicants' name on them only give the appearance of individualised
decisions. They invoke Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
2. The applicants also complain that the situation in Surinam has
not yet become fully regularised and that all Surinamese returning
from the Netherlands risk being killed or seriously hurt if sent back
to Surinam. They allege that the Netherlands is treating them
inhumanly by expelling them to Surinam. They invoke Article 3 of the
Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicants have complained that after having been
tolerated in the Netherlands under an official policy of toleration of
Surinamese refugees, they are now being expelled. They have invoked
Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-4) which provides as follows:
"Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited".
The Commission recalls its decision in Application No. 7011/75
(Dec. 3.10.75, Yearbook 19 p. 416, 454) wherein it defined collective
expulsion as follows:
"...any measure of the competent authorities compelling
aliens as a group to leave the country, except where such a
measure is taken after and on the basis of a reasonable and
objective examination of the particular cases of each
individual alien of the group".
The Commission notes that in the present case the expulsion or
the examination of the applicants' requests for asylum was suspended
by the Netherlands authorities between 5 December 1986 and February
1988. Thereafter, examination of these cases was taken up again. The
applicants have, individually, received decisions on their requests
and have requested a review of these decisions by the Minister of
Justice. They have all instituted summary proceedings before the
President of the Regional Court or appeals to the Council of State
against their expulsion. Before the President of the Regional Court
they have the opportunity to explain their objections to their
expulsion. Before the Council of State, which has already decided on
their cases, they have had the opportunity to explain their objections
to not being granted asylum or a residence permit.
In these circumstances the Commission considers that the
applicants' expulsion does not reveal the appearance of a collective
expulsion within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-4).
It follows that this complaint 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 have also complained that they all face being
severely ill-treated or killed if returned to Surinam. They allege
that sending Surinamese people back to Surinam constitutes inhuman
treatment on the part of the Netherlands. They invoke Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention which provides as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment".
On the basis of the information submitted, the Commission
considers that the applicants have failed to substantiate their
complaint that the situation in Surinam is so dangerous that a
possible return of them would violate Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention.
It follows that this complaint must also 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
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
APPENDIX
&SParticulars of the applicants&-
Premnath BHAGELOE, born on 11.5.1960
Sandijar KROMOINANGOEN, born on 20.2.1947
Trimo HARJOMOHAMED, born on 7.7.1937
Samsoender RAMDIEN, born on 27.11.1930
Stuart Oomperkash JETHOE, born on 25.3.1958
Agnes Santakoemarie BANDHOE, born on 16.9.1959
Soeroedjpersad KATWAROE, born on 4.6.1964
Wadjiman NAWAWI, born on 29.1.1959
Wladimir Egbert LONT, born on 26.12.1935
Warsimin William DASAR, born on 29.8.1934
Soekhia BHOELAI, born on 16.12.1931
Soerdjew SOWDAGAR, born on 11.7.1969
Seurni MODRONO, born on 20.3.1962