AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21576/93
by F.D.
against Norway
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
10 September 1993, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
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 4 February 1993
by F.D. against Norway and registered on 23 March 1993 under file No.
21576/93;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 14 May 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by
the applicant on 30 June 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a so-called Kosovo Albanian, born in 1972. He
is a Muslim. At present he is living in an asylum centre in Norway.
Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Eric Rundhovde, a lawyer
practising in Bergen.
A. The particular facts of the case
The applicant came to Norway for the first time on 1 May 1989 and
applied for asylum. His request was rejected by the Ministry of Justice
on 21 March 1990 and he was returned to Zagreb on 20 April 1990.
Thereafter he stayed at home with his parents, brothers and sisters in
a village called Ghloxan in Kosovo.
On 6 May 1991 he was called to serve in the Federal Yugoslav army
and, in order to avoid this, he went to Switzerland on 29 June 1991
where he worked in a restaurant. He stayed there until 29 October 1991
when he returned to Kosovo and stayed at Pristina, Kosovo. He submits
that he stayed there illegally and that the authorities were looking
for him since he had deserted from the army. On 21 January 1992 he left
for Norway by car. He submits that a friend drove him to Norway for
2000 DM.
In Norway the applicant applied for asylum or a residence permit
on humanitarian grounds, referring to the situation in Yugoslavia and
to the fact that he had not complied with the draft order. He was
interrogated by the Norwegian police on 6 February 1992. He submitted,
inter alia, that he did not want to return to Yugoslavia as long as
there is a war going on there, but he would return and fight the Serbs
if war broke out between the Serbs and the Albanians in Kosovo.
During the asylum/residence permit proceedings the applicant was
represented by counsel under a legal aid grant.
On 21 July 1992 the Directorate for Aliens (Utlendings-
direktoratet) rejected the application. In its decision the Directorate
stated:
(translation)
"the Directorate considers that it cannot be established that
[the applicant] has been subjected to actions by the authorities
which may be characterised as persecution within the meaning of
the Aliens Act (Utlendingsloven) or the Refugee Convention.
It appears from his previous application (for asylum in Norway)
that [the applicant] was convicted in absentia and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment for participation in demonstrations.
However, there is no information in the new application which
could lead to the conclusion that the authorities tried to
enforce the judgment despite the fact that [the applicant]
remained in his country after the alleged judgment was
pronounced.
It has been noticed that [the applicant] claims to have been
arrested twice. However, no explanation as to why he was
arrested, or when, has been submitted.
[The applicant] has not been a member of a political party or
organisation either and it is not found to be established that
[the applicant] has been politically active in such a way that
there is reason to fear persecution.
As a reason for leaving the country [the applicant] also submits
that, on 6 May 1991, he was called to do military service as from
19 June 1991. A copy of the order is enclosed.
[The applicant] did not, however, comply with the order but
travelled to Switzerland and started working there. [He] returned
to Yugoslavia/Kosovo in October 1991 and stayed there until he
left for Norway. It is considered to be extraordinary that [the
applicant] returned to his country and actually stayed there for
about three months if he had received a draft order with which
he did not intend to comply.
There is also reason to point out that fear of or an aversion to
doing military service in general does not entitle to asylum or
a residence permit in Norway.
Having considered the case as a whole it is not likely that there
would be an imminent risk of persecution upon leaving the country
within the meaning of the Aliens Act and the Refugee Convention.
Nor is there reason to give [the applicant] a residence or a work
permit in Norway in accordance with Section 8, subsection 2, of
the Aliens Act.
Section 15, subsection 1, of the Aliens Act does not prevent a
return to the country of origin."
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Ministry of
Justice. During these proceedings he was represented by his present
representative under a grant of legal aid.
In its decision of 29 September 1992, rejecting the appeal, the
Ministry stated inter alia:
(translation)
"[the applicant] submits in his application of 25 January 1992
that he has received a draft order. However, it is clear that
this is not a mobilisation order but an order for ordinary first
time military service. The Ministry refers in this respect to the
fact that non-appearance for ordinary first time military service
does not constitute a basis for granting asylum in Norway.
After considering the case as a whole the Ministry does not find
that such strong humanitarian considerations or particular
connections with Norway exist that [the applicant] should receive
a residence permit in accordance with Section 8, subsection 2,
of the Aliens Act. The Ministry considers it obvious that a
possible reaction from the authorities due to the fact that [the
applicant] has evaded military service is not of such character
as would necessitate the granting of a residence permit in
accordance with Section 8, subsection 2. The so-called 'immediate
danger of war' situation was not at hand when [the applicant] was
allegedly called to do his first time military service.
Furthermore, the Federal (Yugoslav) Army is not a party in the
present war in former Yugoslavia. It should also be pointed out
that [the applicant] remained in Kosovo approximately three
months after he was called to the army. Furthermore, it is
recalled that the Ministry is constantly informed of the
situation in Kosovo and that it is not considered to be such that
a residence permit on humanitarian grounds could be granted.
...
The decision should be enforced in accordance with Sections 40
and 41 of the Aliens Act. In this connection the Ministry points
out that the present situation in Yugoslavia requires that a
deportation will only take place in consultation with the
Ministry."
The applicant submits that deportation would mean that he will
be taken by air to Skopje in Macedonia, and then by bus to the Kosovo
border, where he will receive certain travel money and otherwise be
left there. He also submits that the border between Macedonia and
Kosovo is closed and that he could not therefore return to Kosovo
without being arrested by the Serbian dominated authorities in Kosovo.
On 7 October 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings in the
City Court (byrett) of Oslo claiming that the decision to refuse him
asylum or a residence permit and to deport him was illegal. He also
applied for legal aid as his previous legal aid grant only covered the
proceedings before the administrative authorities ending with the
decision of the Ministry of Justice. He furthermore requested that the
court proceedings be given suspensive effect. The latter request was
subsequently withdrawn as he was informed that he would not be deported
while the case was pending.
On 14 October 1992 the applicant's request for legal aid was
refused by the County Governor (Fylkesmannen). This decision was upheld
by the Ministry of Justice on 27 January 1993.
The case was heard in the City Court on 11 February 1993. The
applicant was present, but not represented. The respondent State was
represented by its Solicitor General (Regjeringsadvokaten).
In its judgment of 17 February 1993, finding in favour of the
respondent State, the Court stated inter alia:
"The Court must first consider whether [the applicant] has
a right to asylum in accordance with Section 17 of the
Aliens Act. Thereafter the question of a residence permit
in accordance with Section 8, subsection 2, of the Aliens
Act arises and finally the question whether Section 15 of
the Act is applicable.
The requirements under Section 17 of the Act are that the
alien should be considered a refugee. A refugee within the
meaning of this Act is someone who falls under Section 1A
of the Refugee Convention, i.e. a person who rightly fears
persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or due to his political
conviction.
Non-appearance for first time military service cannot in
itself constitute the basis for granting asylum. Such a an
act is normally punished in most countries ... .
However, if someone risks a disproportionately severe
sentence therefor, due to his nationality or political
opinion ... he may nevertheless be considered to be a
refugee.
[The applicant] should have appeared for ordinary first
time military service in 1991, before the war started. The
Court must therefore consider it established that as a
starting point he does not risk being convicted under the
more severe sanctions applicable in case of wartime
desertion. It has been submitted that only a few judgments
have been pronounced, concerning refusal by Kosovo
Albanians to do military service. Of these pronounced the
sentence imposed lies between 6 and 13 months. Furthermore
it has been submitted that more than 100,000 - 200,000
persons have refused to appear for military service in
Serbia most recently, both Kosovo Albanians and others. The
Court finds no reason to doubt this information. This means
that the Serbian authorities' possibilities of pursuing
such offences are minimal. [The applicant] has also stayed
in Kosovo for three months after he should have joined the
military without this leading to reactions, something which
supports this opinion.
On the other hand it may be questioned whether the
situation in Kosovo is so tense and unclear that it is
difficult to say anything about how the authorities would
react towards military objectors in the future. The Court
refers to the fact that the situation in Kosovo from
several sides is characterised by being explosive even
without concrete reasons to fear that the war in Yugoslavia
will spread to Kosovo in the near future. The situation for
the Kosovo Albanians is difficult. They are harassed by the
Serbs and the Court has no reason to doubt that there is a
serious fear of open conflict/war. It has been submitted
that frequent searches and identity controls take place, as
well as brief detentions. The Serbs fear among other things
that the Kosovo Albanians would take up arms. This general
harassment and fear of conflict is not normally considered
to constitute a basis for asylum.
A risk of imprisonment due to a refusal to do military
service in such circumstances, in particular in the light
of the atrocities which this war has shown, makes it easy
to understand that [the applicant] seriously fears
persecution due to his refusal to do military service.
The Court has nevertheless reached the conclusion that this
fear cannot be decisive in respect of the question whether
[the applicant] should be considered a refugee. The Court
considers that, in accordance with the definition of a
refugee, it is a requirement that this fear must relate to
a more concrete development and base itself on information
concerning the treatment of military objectors in the
country.
The question must also be raised whether it is possible
that [the applicant] will be particularly severely punished
if arrested because he has participated in demonstrations
against the authorities earlier. He has maintained during
the hearing that he has been convicted and sentenced to six
months' imprisonment in absentia in 1989 therefor, and that
the police have looked for him at his parents' home in
order to arrest him for political activity.
The Court does not find it unlikely that [the applicant]
has participated in some of the many political
demonstrations in Kosovo in the 80's. A proposal for a
constitutional amendment limiting the self-government was
followed by demonstrations and strikes in January/February
1989. However, the Court finds it unlikely that [the
applicant] thereby caught the attention of the authorities
due to his political opinion. ... It is clear that [the
applicant] since then stayed in Kosovo approximately one
year and two months without the authorities succeeding in
finding him. [He] alleges that this was due to the fact
that he did not stay with his parents but stayed in Kosovo
illegally. The Court finds, however, that this supports the
view that the authorities did not make an effort in order
to find him and there is no reason to fear that he will be
subjected to a particularly severe punishment due to
political activity.
As regards the risk that [the applicant], if forced to do
military service, will have to participate in acts of war
which take place in former Yugoslavia and which the UN has
condemned ... the Court refers to the fact that troops from
the Federal Yugoslav Army do not participate in the acts of
war which take place. Therefore [the applicant] does not
risk having to participate in these acts of war which the
UN has condemned. Furthermore, the Serbs do not want to
train the Kosovo Albanians in handling weapons.
One may of course ask whether the situation in Yugoslavia
is so turbulent that it is difficult to say anything about
the risk of being engaged in such acts of war in the
future. However, the Court has reached the conclusion that
it must be considered to be a fact that the Federal
Yugoslav Army, including troops from Kosovo and Monte-
negro, does not for the time being participate in the acts
of war which take place, regardless of the fact that the
situation in Yugoslavia has been turbulent now for some
time.
[The applicant] has also submitted that he has a right to
a residence permit in accordance with Section 8, subsection
2, of the Aliens Act. This provision provides that when
strong humanitarian considerations so require, or when the
alien has special connections with the country, a work or
residence permit may be given despite the fact that the
requirements are not fulfilled.
The administrative authorities have a margin of
appreciation here, i.e. the Court cannot review the use
thereof. This follows from the fact that the word 'may' has
been used. Only errors in applying the margin of
appreciation may be reviewed.
The Court finds that no such errors have been committed in
applying the margin of appreciation. Nothing indicates that
the Ministry of Justice has based itself on incorrect
facts, that irrelevant considerations have been applied or
that there has been an unjustifiable differential
treatment. The conclusion is therefore that the Court must
find in favour of the State on this point.
An alien may be protected against persecution under Section
15 of the Aliens Act regardless of the fact that he cannot
be considered a refugee if inter alia, for similar reasons
as set out in the definition of a refugee, he is in
imminent danger of losing his life or of being subjected to
inhuman treatment if returned. It is here the alien's
situation at the time of his return which is decisive.
As regards the Kosovo Albanians who have been returned,
between 50 - 100 because of minor criminal offences, the
State has maintained that they have not been subjected to
any particular treatment upon return in so far as the State
has been informed. It is alleged that the Ministry of
Justice inter alia receives information from LDK (a legal
political party dominated by Kosovo Albanians) and that it
would have been informed if something had happened. The
deportation had taken place by air to Macedonia and
subsequently by bus or private car to Kosovo. Many asylum
seekers also returned voluntarily and visited Kosovo. The
Court has no reason to believe that this information is not
correct. Nothing has been submitted, in particular as
regards whether Kosovo Albanian miliary objectors have been
returned, for example how many, but the Court finds that
there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting that they
will be subjected to a particular persecution because they
have left their country. In this connection it must be kept
in mind that the risk of being convicted for refusal to do
military service does not in itself suffice to bring
Section 15 into play. In this respect the question also
arises whether the tense situation in Kosovo, the
insecurity in regard to how the situation will develop
compared with the risk of being detained for refusal to do
military service in such a situation, implies that Section
15 applies.
However, the Court has reached the conclusion that the risk
of losing his life or of [the applicant] being subjected to
inhuman treatment if he is deported, is not of the
imminence which is required in order to be protected under
this provision.
According to the submissions, the Ministry of Justice will
not in any circumstances decide to deport (the applicant)
before the European Commission of Human Rights has decided
in the case. The situation may then have changed and the
authorities must in view of all the circumstances
prevailing at the moment of deportation decide whether [the
applicant], due to similar reasons as those set out in the
definition of a refugee, is in imminent danger of losing
his life or of being subjected to inhuman treatment, cf.
Section 15 of the Aliens Act."
The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Eidsivating
High Court (Lagmannsrett) where the case is at present pending. The
appeal has no suspensive effect.
B. Domestic law and practice
Asylum
The right to refuse asylum in Norway is regulated by the Aliens
Act of 24 June 1988. According to Section 4 of the Act, it shall be
applied in accordance with international rules by which Norway is bound
when these are intended to safeguard the position of foreign nationals.
Norwegian practice concerning refugees and the question of "non-
refoulement" should therefore be applied in accordance with the 1951
Convention relating to the status of refugees, and the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Section 16 of the Aliens Act concerning the determination of
refugee status refers directly to the definition in Article 1 A of the
1951 Convention, from which it follows that a refugee is a person who
stays outside his country of origin, and who may fear persecution from
the authorities in his country of origin, due to e.g. political or
religious activity, or ethnic or national origin.
According to Section 17, subsection 1, of the Aliens Act, a
foreign national considered a refugee has, with some exceptions, the
right to asylum in Norway.
According to Article 15 of the Aliens Act, no foreign national
should be sent to any area where he or she may fear persecution of such
a kind as may justify recognition as a refugee, or where the foreigner
will not feel confident about being sent to such an area. A
corresponding protection applies to foreign nationals, who for reasons
similar to those given in the definition of a refugee, are in
considerable danger of losing their lives or being made to suffer
inhuman treatment. This section applies to foreign nationals in
general.
Residence permit
According to Section 8 of the Aliens Act a residence permit can
be issued on humanitarian grounds if asylum is denied. Whether or not
such a residence permit should be granted depends on an individual
assessment in each case. Section 8 does not give a foreign national
an automatic right to a residence permit, but it follows from the
Aliens Act that a residence permit will be granted on humanitarian
grounds if a foreign national may be subjected to a considerable danger
of losing his life or if he risks suffering inhuman treatment due to
reasons similar to those applicable to refugees.
Available remedies
According to Sections 15 and 21 of the Aliens Act, the
Directorate for Aliens will in the first instance decide whether an
asylum seeker can be considered a refugee. If asylum is denied, the
Directorate shall on its own account assess whether the asylum seeker
should be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Under
Chapter VI of the Public Administration Act (Forvaltningsloven) of
10 February 1967 the asylum seeker can appeal to the Ministry of
Justice if asylum or both asylum and the request for a residence permit
are denied.
Following the administrative proceedings an asylum seeker has the
possibility of instituting proceedings in the ordinary courts of law
against the State concerning the refusals to grant him asylum or a
residence permit. These proceedings have no suspensive effect unless
the court so decides and they follow the usual civil law procedure.
Such procedure comprises three court levels: the City Court, the High
Court and, with leave, the Supreme Court (Høyesterett).
Free legal aid
According to Section 42, subsection 3, of the Aliens Act, and
Section 13, subsection 1, of the Act of 13 June 1980 relating to Legal
Aid, aliens are entitled to free legal aid in connection with the
administrative processing of applications for asylum, without being
subject to a means test. This represents preferential treatment in
comparison with Norwegian citizens. In accordance with Section 42,
subsection 4, of the Aliens Act, the authorities have the right to
demand a refund if the alien can afford it.
In accordance with the Immigration Regulations, Sections 131 -
133, the police shall provide information on the applicant's right to
legal aid, and the authorities' right to demand a refund. Legal
guidance shall be given in a language understood by the alien. The
police shall furthermore assist the alien in contacting a lawyer, if
so requested.
The right to free legal aid applies to both the processing of the
case in the first instance, and to possible appeals to the superior
administrative authorities. The authorities meet lawyers' fees for up
to five hours' work at 495.- NOK per hour in connection with the
processing at first instance, and one hour for the processing of
appeals.
In the event of the alien wanting to have his case examined by
the courts of law, the standard regulations governing free legal aid
take effect. The regulations relating to free legal aid are identical
for aliens and Norwegian citizens. The regulations governing free
legal aid are contained in Chapter IV of the Legal Aid Act. Should the
applicant meet the economic conditions and if the County Governor deems
it reasonable, free legal aid may be awarded. An overall assessment
shall be made, and there shall be particular emphasis on the nature of
the case, the implications of the case for the plaintiff, and the
likelihood of the application being successful. According to Section
28 of the Legal Aid Act, the County Governor's decision may be appealed
to the Ministry of Justice.
In the event of free legal aid being granted before a particular
court, the alien must make a fresh application if he wishes to appeal
the case to a higher court.
If free legal aid has been awarded, it also covers the
administrative fee charged by the court before which the case is being
heard.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of
the Convention.
As regards Article 3, he refers to the general situation in
former Yugoslavia and to the fact that he has refused to join the
Federal Yugoslav Army. He maintains that he risks up to ten years'
imprisonment and being forced to do military service, helping the
Serbs. He also maintains that there is no guarantee that the courts in
Kosovo could guarantee him a fair trial or that prison conditions would
comply with Article 3 of the Convention. He submits that the general
situation in Kosovo is very turbulent and the information from there
is controlled by the Serbs. He considers that it would be contrary to
Article 3 of the Convention to deport him to Kosovo in the present
circumstances.
As regards Article 13, the applicant complains that the refusal
to grant him legal aid deprived him of an effective remedy before a
national authority in order to bring his case before the ordinary
courts of law.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 4 February 1993 and registered
on 23 March 1993.
On 10 February 1993 the Commission decided to apply Rule 36 of
its Rules of Procedure, having found that it was desirable not to
deport the applicant to former Yugoslavia until it had had an
opportunity to examine the case further.
On 8 April 1993 the Commission decided to prolong its indication
under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure and to bring the application
to the notice of the respondent Government, inviting them to submit
written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
The Government's observations were submitted on 14 May 1993 and
the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 30 June 1993.
On 9 July 1993 the Commission decided to prolong its indication
under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that, if returned to Kosovo, he risks
being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
In support of his contention the applicant refers to the general
situation in former Yugoslavia and the particular situation of the
Kosovo Albanians. Furthermore, he refers to his own political views and
to the fact that he has refused to comply with the draft order to the
Federal Yugoslav Army. He maintains that he risks up to ten years'
imprisonment for draft evasion. In addition the applicant maintains
that there is no guarantee that the courts in Kosovo would comply with
the fair trial requirements or that prison conditions would be in
accordance with Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. He submits that
the situation in Kosovo is very turbulent and fully under Serbian
control. If returned, he would accordingly face imprisonment or, while
doing his military service, be completely in the hands of the Serbian
authorities.
The Government maintain that, although the Serbian authorities
are harassing a large number of ethnic Albanians, there is nothing
which indicates that the applicant would be particularly exposed to
such harassment. His political activities have been minimal and he has
not been subjected to ill-treatment while in Kosovo.
As regards the draft order the Government submit, in particular,
that being drafted into military service, with possible prosecution for
default, does not in itself violate Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention. Conscientious objectors who have been punished in Serbia
recently have received sentences ranging from six to eighteen months'
imprisonment and there have been no objections to the way in which
these cases have been handled by the Serbian authorities.
The Government conclude that it is highly unlikely that the
applicant would be met with any kind of reaction if returned to Kosovo.
At any rate, any reaction on the part of the Serbian authorities would
not, in the opinion of the Government, exceed the minimum level of
severity required by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to
control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to
political asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its
Protocols (Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of
30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102). However,
expulsion by a Contracting State of an asylum seeker may give rise to
an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention and hence engage
the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where
substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person
concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which
he is to be expelled (ibid., para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-
treatment is not in itself sufficient (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).
The examination of the present case involves, on the one hand,
the applicant's personal situation and, on the other, the general
situation in Kosovo. For this purpose the parties have provided
relevant material which includes information from the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International as well as
information concerning the applicant's particular situation. Having
regard thereto the Commission finds that the general situation in
Kosovo at present is not of a kind that an expulsion to that area of
former Yugoslavia would as such amount to a violation of the Convention
or its Protocols. In order to raise an issue under the provision
invoked there should accordingly be some substantiation as to the
existence of a specific risk of treatment contrary to Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention.
In the present case such particular circumstances might be that
the applicant is a draft evader. However, the Commission shares the
Government's doubts as to whether the applicant will, in the
circumstances, receive any punishment at all. Furthermore, the
Commission does not find that the possible sanction for draft evasion
is so severe as to raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention (cf. No. 11017/84, Dec. 13.3.86, D.R. 46 p. 176 and No.
12364/86, Dec. 17.10.86, D.R. 50 p. 280).
Accordingly, the Commission concludes, on the evidence before it
concerning the applicant's background and the general situation in
Kosovo, that it has not been established that there are substantial
grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real
risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of
the Convention if returned to Kosovo.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para.
2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 13
(Art. 13) of the Convention due to the fact that he was not granted
legal aid in order to bring his case before the ordinary courts of
law.
The Commission recalls that according to the provisions of the
Norwegian Aliens Act, an alien may apply for asylum or a residence
permit to the Directorate for Aliens. The Directorate's decisions may
be appealed against to the Ministry of Justice. The alien is entitled
to free legal aid in connection with these proceedings, without being
subject to a means test.
Subsequently, the alien may institute proceedings in the ordinary
courts of law and may be granted legal aid for that purpose provided
he fulfils certain general requirements for obtaining such aid.
The Commission considers that a system as described above does
not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of
the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is also
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy