AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 15782/89
by G.
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 5 October 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
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 RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
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 16 October 1989
by G. against Sweden and registered on 20 November 1989 under file
No. 15782/89;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the Government's written observations dated
10 May 1990 and the applicant's observations dated 2 July 1990;
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 an Ethiopian citizen, born in 1981 and
resident at Ä., Sweden. Before the Commission the applicant is
represented by Mr. Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The applicant's parents are not married.
The applicant's father came to Sweden as a refugee in 1985 and
was granted asylum. At that time the applicant was living with her
mother in a village in the Eritrea countryside in Ethiopia. When the
village was bombed by Government forces in 1987, the applicant and her
mother fled and were separated from each other in the confusion. With
the help of others, the applicant went to Sudan. Her father was
informed of her situation and took her to Sweden. The applicant has
now a permanent residence permit in Sweden.
The applicant's mother remained in Sudan as a refugee. Her
request for a visa and a residence and work permit in Sweden was first
refused by the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) on
1 June 1989. A further request was refused on 6 October 1989. On
10 May 1990 the applicant's mother was granted a residence permit in
Sweden.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention on the ground that her mother was refused a residence
permit in Sweden.
2. The applicant also alleged a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of
the Convention, claiming that there was a dispute over her civil
rights and that no remedy was available in Sweden.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 16 October 1989 and
registered on 20 November 1989.
On 5 March 1990 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.
The Government's observations were received by letter dated
10 May 1990 and the applicant's observations were dated 2 July 1990.
THE LAW
1. In her written observations of 2 July 1990 the applicant
stated that, as her mother had been allowed to settle in Sweden, she
wished to withdraw her complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention,
while maintaining her complaints under Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13)
of the Convention.
In view of the fact that the applicant has withdrawn her
complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the Commission
finds no reason to examine this complaint further.
2. The applicant has maintained her complaint under Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. However, according to the
Commission's case-law, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not apply to
disputes whether an alien should be allowed to enter a particular
country (cf. No. 8244/78, Dec. 2.5.79, D.R. 17 p. 157 and No.
9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 25 p. 201). The Commission finds no reason
to depart from this case-law in the present case.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
3. The applicant has also alleged a violation of Article 13
(Art. 13) of the Convention on the ground that she had no effective
remedy for her grievance under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
However, Article 13 (Art. 13) requires a remedy in domestic
law only in respect of a claim of a violation which can be regarded as
"arguable" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April
1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52). As the applicant has
withdrawn her complaint under Article 8 after her claim had been
satisfied, the Commission finds no "arguable" claim which would
entitle the applicant to a remedy under Article 13 (Art. 13).
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy