Application No. 17751/91
by Tesfai EMHAZION
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 27 May 1991, the following members being present:
Present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Sir Basil HALL
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. K. ROGGE, Deputy to the 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 18 January 1991
by Tesfai EMHAZION against Sweden and registered on 4 February 1991
under file No. 17751/91;
Having regard to:
- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission;
- the applicant's letter of 3 April 1991;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Swedish citizen of Ethiopian origin born in
1968. He is a student resident in Stockholm. Before the Commission
he is represented by Mr. Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising in
Stockholm.
The applicant is a political refugee from Eritrea. In 1982 he
fled to Sweden, where he was granted asylum. Since then he has been
living in Sweden and has acquired Swedish citizenship.
In April 1990, in Sudan, the applicant contracted marriage
with Mrs. Lemlem Bahta Negash, a woman of Eritrean descent living as a
refugee in Sudan. On 27 November 1990 the Swedish Immigration Board
(statens invandrarverk) rejected her request for a residence and work
permit, stating that her relationship with the applicant was not
sufficiently established.
The applicant has submitted a copy of a marriage certificate
issued by the Registrar of Marriages of Sudan on 22 May 1990. It is
not possible for the family to settle in Sudan and, as political
refugees, they cannot go back to Ethiopia. His wife is living in
insecure and difficult conditions in Sudan.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained that he was prevented from living with
his wife. He alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complained that there was no remedy before
a Swedish authority against the decision by the Immigration Board. He
invoked Article 13 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 18 January 1991 and
registered on 4 February 1991.
By letter of 3 April 1991 the applicant informed the
Commission that on 4 March 1991 his wife had been granted a visa. He
further stated that he wished to withdraw his application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention the
Commission notes that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application
since his wife has been granted a visa. In these circumstances the
Commission concludes that the matter has been resolved. It further
considers that no special circumstances affecting the respect for
Human Rights as defined in the Convention require the further
examination of the application under Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Deputy to the Secretary President of the
to the Commission Commission
(K. ROGGE) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy