AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 34944/97
by Immanuel CHIEDU
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
8 September 1997, the following members being present:
Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
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
Mrs. M. HION
MM. R. NICOLINI
A. ARABADJIEV
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 22 November 1996
by Immanuel CHIEDU against Sweden and registered on 17 February 1997
under file No. 34944/97;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Nigerian citizen born in 1961, resides in
Mölndal, Sweden.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
On 26 May 1990 the applicant married a Swedish woman. They
divorced on 2 December 1994. They have two children, 5 and 4 years old
respectively, of whom the mother has custody.
The applicant arrived in Sweden in December 1990. He has a
permanent residence permit valid until 1 July 1999.
By judgment of the District Court (tingsrätten) of Göteborg of
13 August 1996, the applicant was convicted of attempted aggravated
assault (försök till grov misshandel), aggravated reckless driving
(grov vårdslöshet i trafik) and two narcotics offences. He was
sentenced to two years in prison. Furthermore, his expulsion from
Sweden was ordered.
As regards the question of expulsion, the District Court had
regard to a statement from the National Immigration Board (Statens
invandrarverk) to the effect that there were no impediments to
expelling the applicant to Nigeria. The court further found that the
applicant had only irregular contacts with his children and that, in
view of his involvement in what appeared to be organised narcotics
traffic, there were special reasons to order his expulsion.
The applicant appealed against the expulsion order. However, on
7 October 1996, the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Western Sweden
upheld the District Court's judgment. The applicant received
directions on how to appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen).
The applicant subsequently, by letter to the Court of Appeal of
25 November 1996, appealed to the Supreme Court. On 3 December 1996,
the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for having been lodged out of
time, the time-limit having expired on 4 November 1996.
The applicant appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision
but, on 8 January 1997, the Supreme Court upheld it.
On 12 December 1996 the National Paroles Board (Kriminalvårds-
nämnden) ordered that the applicant be released from prison on
30 August 1997, after which date he may be expelled to Nigeria.
Apparently, the applicant has requested the Government to revoke
the expulsion order. Moreover, he has petitioned the Government for
pardon. No decision has been taken by the Government, however.
The applicant has submitted a copy of the Nigerian National Drug
Law Enforcement Decree No. 33 of 1990, Section 12 A of which states
that any Nigerian citizen found guilty of narcotics offences in a
foreign country is guilty of an offence also under that Section and is
liable to imprisonment for five years.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant contends that his expulsion would fail to respect
his family life, as he would be separated from his children. He
further claims that, according to Nigerian law, he might be tried and
executed for the narcotics offences he committed in Sweden. He invokes
Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the
Convention and Articles 1 and 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 22 November 1996 and registered
on 17 February 1997.
On 15 July 1997 the applicant requested the Commission to
petition the Government of Sweden to stay his expulsion. On 23 July
1997 the Acting President of the Commission decided not to indicate to
the Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, the measure suggested by the applicant.
THE LAW
The applicant contends that his expulsion would fail to respect
his family life, as he would be separated from his children. He
further claims that, according to Nigerian law, he might be tried and
executed for the narcotics offences he committed in Sweden.
The Commission is, however, not required to decide whether or not
the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a
violation of the Articles invoked as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention, it "may only deal with the matter after all domestic
remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised
rules of international law ...". The Commission recalls that the
applicant's appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed
as the applicant had failed to respect the applicable time-limit for
appealing to the Supreme Court. He has thus not exhausted the remedies
available to him under Swedish law. Moreover, an examination of the
complaints does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances
which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the remaining
remedy at his disposal.
It follows that the application must be rejected for non-
exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)
of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
of the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy