AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 15576/89
by Hector CRUZ VARAS and his family
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 7 December 1989, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
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 5 October 1989
by Hector Cruz Varas and his family against Sweden and registered
on 5 October 1989 under file No. 15576/89;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the Government's written submissions dated 16
and 27 October, 22 and 28 November 1989 and the applicants' written
submissions dated 3 and 30 November 1989 as well as the parties' oral
submissions at the hearing on 7 December 1989;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case as they appear from the parties'
submissions may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are Hector Cruz Varas born in 1948, Magaly
Maritza Bustamento Lazo born in 1965 and Richard Cruz born in 1985.
They are Chilean citizens. The first applicant has been deported to
Chile and the second and third applicants are in hiding in Sweden.
The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mr. Peter
Bergquist, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
In January 1987 the first applicant entered Sweden. On
5 June 1987 the second and third applicants came to Sweden.
On 21 April 1988 the National Immigration Board (statens
invandrarverk) decided to expel the applicants. On 29 September 1988
the applicants' appeal was rejected by the Government.
Before the Police Authority at Varberg the applicants alleged
that there were obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion
order and requested that their case be transferred to the Immigration
Board. This request was refused on 21 October 1988. The applicants'
appeal was rejected by the Immigration Board on 26 October 1988. On
27 October 1988 the applicants again requested that their case be
transferred to the Immigration Board. On 28 October 1988 the Police
Authority refused this request, and the applicants' appeal was
rejected by the Board on the same day.
On 28 January 1989 the applicants again alleged that there
were obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion order. The
first applicant alleged inter alia that he had been tortured and
sexually abused on several occasions in Chile. The allegations were
submitted to the Police Authority at Varberg. On 13 January 1989 the
Police Authority transferred the case to the Immigration Board which
in an opinion of 8 March 1989, while transferring the case to the
Government, considered that there were no obstacles againt the enforcement.
Before the Government, the first applicant invoked in
particular two medical certificates, one of which was issued on
9 May 1989 by Dr. Sten W. Jakobsson. In his certificate Dr. Jakobsson
states, in summary, that "nothing has been established which
contradicts the assumption that Hector Cruz Varas has been subjected
to such torture and sexual abuse as he alleges."
On 4 October 1989 the first applicant was taken into custody
by the Police Authority of Varberg following a decision by the
Minister of Labour.
On 5 October 1989 the Government (Ministry of Labour) found
that there were no obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion
of the first applicant and his family.
After the introduction of the present application and the
Commission's indication to the respondent Government that it was
desirable not to deport the applicants until the Commission had had a
further opportunity to examine the application, the National Immigration
Board decided on 6 October 1989 not to stop the enforcement of the
expulsion order.
On the same day the first applicant was expelled to Chile. The
second and third applicants went into hiding in Sweden.
The Government sumbit that, following his removal to Chile,
the first applicant has not been the object of any attention by the
Chilean authorities and lives in his home at Villa Alemana in Chile.
The applicants submit, through their counsel, that Mr. Cruz Varas has
fled to Argentina where he is now staying.
COMPLAINTS
1. The first applicant alleges a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention on the ground that his expulsion to Chile involved a risk
that he would be tortured in the way he had been tortured before; in
any case the torture to which he had been subjected constituted such
a trauma that his forced return to Chile amounted to inhuman treatment.
2. The three applicants allege that the expulsion of the third
applicant would involve a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in
that the son would suffer from the expulsion.
3. The applicants allege that the separation of the family by the
expulsion violated Article 8 of the Convention.
4. The applicants further allege that the examination of their
request for a residence permit in Sweden involved a determination of
a civil right and that they were therefore entitled to a procedure
meeting the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
5. The applicants also allege a violation of Article 13 of
the Convention on the ground that the procedure before the National
Immigration Board and the Government did not fulfil the requirements of
that provision.
6. Finally, the applicants allege that the failure of Sweden to
comply with the Commission's indication under Rule 36 of its Rules of
Procedure violated the applicants' right to petition the Commission
which is guaranteed by Article 25 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 5 October 1989 and
registered on the same day.
On 6 October 1989, at 09.00 hours, the Commission decided to
communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite
them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of
the application limited to the issue under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Commission also decided, in accordance with Rule 36 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the Government that it
was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of
the proceedings before the Commission not to deport the applicants to
Chile until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the
application further.
The Agent of the Government was informed by telephone on the
same day, at 09.10 hours, of the Commission's decision. At 12.00 hours
the Commission confirmed the said indication by telefax.
By letter of 16 October 1989 the Government informed the
Commission that Mr. Cruz Varas had been expelled to Chile at 16.40 hours
on 6 October 1989. His family remained in Sweden.
The Government's further observations were received by letter
dated 27 October 1989 and the applicants' observations were dated
3 November 1989.
On 9 November 1989 the Commission decided to invite the
parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
The Commission further decided, in accordance with Rule 36 of
its Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the Government that it was
desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the
proceedings before the Commission not to deport the second and third
applicants to Chile and that the Government take measures which would
enable the first applicant to return to Sweden as soon as possible.
By letter of 22 November 1989 the Government informed the
Commission that they had transmitted the Commission's indication under
Rule 36 to the National Immigration Board.
On 28 November 1989 the Government submitted additional
written observations and the counsel for the applicants submitted
additional observations on 30 November 1989.
The hearing before the Commission took place on 7 December 1989.
The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Hans Corell,
Ambassador and Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
as well as Mr. Erik Lempert, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry
of Labour, and Mr. Pär Boquist, Legal Adviser at the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, as advisers. The applicants were represented by their
counsel Mr. Peter Bergquist.
THE LAW
1. The applicants allege that the first applicant's removal to
Chile was in breach of Article 3 (Art. 3 ) of the Convention because
it exposed him to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment in that country. They also allege that Article 3 (Art. 3)
would be violated if the third applicant were to be expelled to Chile.
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
The Government argue that this complaint is inadmissible for
failure to comply with the six months rule laid down in Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention insofar as it relates to any decision prior to
those of 5 and 6 October 1989. They further submit that the first
applicant has given various and varying information about his
political activities and the treatment to which he had allegedly
been subjected in Chile. The varying content of his accounts
adversely influences his credibility. Moreover, he has not been the
object of any particular attention by the Chilean authorities after
his return to Chile. He is now living in his home in Villa Alemana.
At the time of his expulsion there was no risk that he might be
subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention if the expulsion was enforced. For these reasons, this
complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.
The Commission considers that the relevant final decision for
the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) is the Government's decision of 5
October 1989 whereby they found that there were no obstacles against
the enforcement of the expulsion order to Chile concerning the
applicants. This complaint cannot therefore be declared inadmissible
for failure to comply with the six months rule laid down in Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention.
The Commission considers that the main issue is whether the
first applicant's expulsion to Chile violated Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention on the ground that, at the time of the expulsion, there
existed substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of
being treated contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) in Chile. The Commission has
carried out a preliminary examination of this issue in the light of
the parties' submissions. It considers that the issue raises
questions of fact and law which are of such a complex nature that
their determination should depend on an examination of the merits.
This complaint cannot therefore be considered manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been
established.
2. The applicants also allege that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention on the ground that the applicants have
been separated as a result of the expulsion to Chile of the first
applicant whereas the other applicants are now hiding in Sweden.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private
and family life, his home and his correspondence.
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 that the splitting up of the family was
the result of the applicants' own actions for which the Government
cannot be held responsible. The authorities' intention was to expel
all the applicants at the same time. In any event, the Convention
does not protect the right of an alien to enter a certain country and
be granted asylum there, nor the right for a family to be united in
a State where no one in the family has a permit to remain. The
complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae or personae with
the Convention or manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
The Commission considers that this complaint is closely
related to the first applicant's complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3).
It also raises questions of fact and law which are of such a complex
nature that their determination should depend on an examination of the
merits. It cannot therefore be considered manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
3. The applicants further complain that the examination of their
requests for a residence permit was a determination of their "civil
rights" and that they were entitled to a procedure satisfying Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention, which reads:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law."
The Commission has constantly held that a decision as to
whether an alien should be allowed to stay in a country is a
discretionary act of a public authority, which does not as such
involve a determination of the alien's "civil rights and obligations"
within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (cf. e.g. No. 8118/77
Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 105). It finds no reason to depart from
this case-law in the present case.
Consequently, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae
with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
4. The applicants also allege a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13)
of the Convention on the ground that the procedure before the National
Immigration Board and the Government did not fulfil the requirements
of that provision. Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention reads:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in
this Convention are violated shall have an effective
remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that
the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity."
The question to be examined is whether in relation to their
complaint, that their expulsion to Chile would violate Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention, the applicants had an effective remedy as
required by Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that the applicants' allegations in
this respect were submitted to the Police Authority, which transferred
the case to the National Immigration Board. In turn the Board
transferred the case to the Government with the opinion that there
were, in the Board's view, no obstacles against the enforcement of the
expulsion order. On 5 October 1989 the Government found that there
were no obstacles against deporting the applicants to Chile. The
applicants' case has consequently been examined at three levels of
jurisdiction and decided by the Government as last and final instance.
The Commission here recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention does not guarantee a remedy against the highest instance,
in this case the Government (cf. Dec. Nos. 8603/67 etc., 18.12.80,
D.R. 22 p. 147). It considers that the procedure which was followed
in the applicants' case satisfied the conditions of Article 13
(Art. 13) of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
5. The applicants also allege that Sweden's failure to comply
with the Commission's indications under Rule 36 of its Rules of
Procedure hinders the effective exercise of their right to have their
case examined by the Commission. They submit that Sweden has violated
Articles 1 (Art. 1) and 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.
Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention reads:
"The High Contracting Parties shall secure to
everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and
freedoms defined in Section 1 of the Convention."
Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention reads:
"The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary-
General of the Council of Europe from any person ... claiming
to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting
Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention, provided that
the High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been
lodged has declared that it recognises the competence of the
Commission to receive such petitions. Those of the High
Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration undertake
not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."
The Government submit that there is no obligation under the
Convention to comply with an indication under Rule 36. This complaint is
therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention or manifestly
ill-founded.
The Commission considers that the respondent State's failure
to comply with the indications made by the Commission under Rule 36
of its Rules of Procedure raises the question whether there has been
a violation of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention in
conjunction with Article 1 (Art. 25-1+1) in view of the special nature
of the alleged violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
This question involves issues which, in the Commission's view, justify
further examination.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE
the complaints under Articles 6 (Art. 6) and 13 (Art. 13) of
the Convention
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION,
without prejudging the merits of the case
RETAINS FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION
the issues arising from the failure to comply with the
indications under Rule 36 of the Commission's
Rules of Procedure
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy