AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14007/88
by Kerstin GADEDI
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 14 December 1988, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
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 April 1988 by
Kerstin Gadedi against Sweden and registered on 8 July 1988 under file
No. 14007/88;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1954 and resident
at Södertälje, Sweden. She is a nursery-school teacher, but has been
receiving sickness benefits since 1 January 1983. She married a Greek
citizen on 24 April 1973, after having known him since 1969. They
have a daughter born on 5 January 1975.
The applicant's husband came to Sweden from Greece for the
first time on 26 June 1969. In 1971 he returned to Greece.
Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him in Sweden and
he was extradited to Sweden from Germany in the summer of 1973. He was
committed to psychiatric care by the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea
hovrätt) on 23 November 1973 after having been convicted inter alia of
gross theft and robbery. In addition the Court ordered that he should
be expelled from Sweden. The applicant's husband was detained in an
institution for mental care for three months and was then expelled to
Greece.
The applicant joined him in Greece, but returned to Sweden
after three months. She had difficulties to adapt and was expecting a
child.
The child was born on 5 January 1975.
On 14 March 1978 the District Court of Stockholm (Stockholms
tingsrätt) convicted the applicant's husband of inter alia gross fraud
and illegal stay in Sweden. He was sentenced to psychiatric care.
On 4 October 1979 the District Court again convicted him of
fraud. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. After having
served parts of his sentence he was released on probation on 14
February 1980. His request to be allowed to stay in Sweden was
rejected by the Government on 11 February 1980. He was accordingly
expelled from Sweden after his release.
The Government decided on 26 February 1981 that the
applicant's husband should be allowed to stay in Sweden until
31 August 1981. This time was extended until 31 December 1982 by a
decision of the Government of 17 December 1981.
On 29 May 1984 the District Court of Södertälje convicted the
applicant's husband of assault, unlawful threats, petty larceny and
threats against a public official. He was sentenced to three months'
imprisonment. He appealed against the judgment, which was confirmed
by the Svea Court of Appeal on 28 February 1985.
On 7 November 1985 the Government rejected a request from the
applicant's husband that, in the first place, the expulsion decision
concerning him be revoked or, in the second place, he nevertheless be
allowed to stay in Sweden.
On 24 February 1986 a request for non-enforcement of the
expulsion decision of 1973 was rejected by the Minister of Labour.
The applicant's husband was released from prison on
28 February 1986 and again expelled from Sweden.
In an opinion of 11 June 1987, on a request made by the
applicant that the expulsion decision concerning her husband be
revoked or he nevertheless be allowed to stay in Sweden, the Swedish
Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) stated that her husband by
relapsing into crime had shown that he would not lead an orderly life
in Sweden. On 27 August 1987 the Government rejected the applicant's
request.
The applicant submitted a further request that the expulsion
decision be revoked or, alternatively, the prohibition for her husband
to return to Sweden be limited in time. The Government rejected her
request on 10 December 1987.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the expulsion of her husband
interferes with her right to respect for her family life and her home
as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
The applicant submits that it is not possible for her to enjoy
family life together with her husband and their daughter in Greece.
The applicant has no knowledge of Greek, nor does her daughter. It
would be difficult for them to adapt to the Greek way of life. They
never spent any longer periods in Greece.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the expulsion of her husband from
Sweden interfered with her right to respect for family life as
guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads as follows:
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 Commission recalls its constant case-law according to
which no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular
country, nor a right not to be expelled from a particular country is
as such guaranteed by the Convention (cf. e.g. No. 9203/80, Dec. 5.5.81,
D.R. 24 p. 239).
Nevertheless, Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention
guarantees to everyone the right to respect for private and family
life.
The Commission has constantly held that the expulsion of a
person from a country where close members of his family are living may
amount to an infringement of Article 8 (Art. 8).
In the present case the Commission accepts that the expulsion
of the applicant's husband constituted an interference with the
applicant's right to respect for her family life in the meaning of
Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1). The question therefore arises whether
this interference was justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) as
being effected in accordance with the law and as being necessary for
one or more of the purposes indicated in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).
The Commission is satisfied that the expulsion was ordered and
effected in accordance with Swedish law. Since the reason for the
expulsion was the applicant's husband's criminal behaviour, the
Commission also accepts the purpose of the measure as being the
prevention of disorder or crime as referred to in Article 8 para. 2
(Art. 8-2).
As regards the necessity of the measure, the Commission first
recalls that in several cases of married men being expelled the
Commission has attached some importance to the question as to whether
the wife would be able to follow her husband to establish together
with him their family life in another country (see, for instance,
No. 8041/77, Dec. 15.12.77, D.R. 12 p. 197).
In the present case, the Commission recognises the problems
which the applicant would have to face if she decided to move with her
daughter to her husband's home-country Greece. However, the Commission
does not find it excluded that their family life could be
re-established in Greece.
In any case, the Commission must attach great weight to the
applicant's husband's criminal record in Sweden and, in particular, to
the fact that, after the expulsion order was made in 1973, he was
convicted of new offences in 1978 and 1979 and that, after he had
again been expelled but allowed to return to Sweden on a trial basis
in 1981, he was again convicted in 1984 of offences, including assault
and threats.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the
Swedish authorities were justified in regarding the applicant's
husband's expulsion in 1986 as a measure necessary for the prevention
of disorder or crime.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)