AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 36800/97
by Amir HEIDARI
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
22 January 1998, the following members being present:
MM S. TRECHSEL, President
J.-C. GEUS
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
P. LORENZEN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
MM R. NICOLINI
A. ARABADJIEV
Mr M. de SALVIA, 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 3 July 1997 by Amir HEIDARI against Sweden
and registered on 7 July 1997 under file No. 36800/97;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 12 November 1997 and the observations in reply submitted
by the applicant on 16 December 1997;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, an Iranian citizen born in 1953, is detained in
Sweden awaiting his forthcoming deportation. He is represented by
Mr Ingemar Sahlström, a lawyer in Uppsala.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
A. The particular circumstances of the case
The applicant arrived in Sweden as a student in 1979 and was
granted a residence permit valid for one year. Shortly thereafter he
applied for a residence permit with reference to his membership of a
group which had been criticising the Shah's regime in Iran. After
Ayatollah Khomeini had come to power the group had allegedly begun to
sympathise with the Kurdish people and the applicant had been wounded
when participating in a combat. This fact and the general situation in
the country had made him want to leave Iran.
In 1981 the applicant was granted a fresh residence permit valid
for one year. In 1982 he requested a permanent residence permit and a
travel document. This request was granted later in 1982, the applicant
having been considered a refugee. He was not issued with a declaration
confirming his refugee status (flyktingförklaring).
In 1984 the applicant was convicted in Sweden on several counts
of document forgery and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The
offences mainly involved the falsification of passports.
In 1988, when the applicant was wanted by the Swedish police, his
brother in Sweden informed the authorities that the applicant had left
Sweden in 1987. The applicant alleges that he had gone to live in
Norway, Denmark and Germany.
On 14 March 1990 the applicant was again convicted in Sweden on
several counts involving the preparation of a document forgery and
violations of the Aliens Act (utlänningslag 1989:529). The latter
offences involved activities aimed at assisting, in return for money,
Iranians lacking valid travel documents in entering Sweden. He was
sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
In 1992 the applicant was convicted in Denmark of violations of
the Danish Aliens Act. He was again sentenced to imprisonment.
On 12 February 1993 the District Court (tingsrätten) of Uppsala
convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud, document forgery and
violation of the Aliens Act. He was sentenced to one year and
six months' imprisonment, ordered to be deported and banned from
returning to Sweden.
According to the District Court's judgment, the applicant had
stated that he had returned to Iran before February 1988 and that he
had taken another name. In the proceedings before the Svea Court of
Appeal (Svea hovrätt) the applicant denied having returned to Iran. On
7 April 1993 the Court of Appeal sentenced him to four years'
imprisonment but quashed the deportation order, finding no evidence
contradicting his denial as regards his return to Iran.
On 10 May 1995 the National Immigration Board (Statens
invandrarverk) withdrew the applicant's residence permit. It noted that
he had been reported as having left Sweden already in 1988 and that he
had not since presented himself to the Swedish authorities.
On 12 October 1995 the applicant was released on parole and
apparently left Sweden. In August 1996 he re-entered Sweden without
reporting to the authorities and without requesting a new residence
permit.
In further criminal proceedings against the applicant before the
Uppsala District Court the National Immigration Board, in an opinion
of 16 December 1996, referred to the withdrawal of his residence permit
on 10 May 1995. In a supplementary opinion of 18 December 1996 the
Board considered that the applicant could no longer be considered
resident in Sweden.
On 7 January 1997 the Uppsala District Court convicted the
applicant of complicity in aggravated fraud. He was sentenced to one
year's imprisonment, ordered to be deported and banned from re-entering
Sweden. According to the District Court's judgment, the applicant had
argued against his possible deportation by referring to his "previous
activities against the Iranian regime both in Iran and abroad". The
District Court noted that the National Immigration Board had withdrawn
his residence permit and had found no obstacles to deporting him. In
ordering his deportation the District Court noted that the applicant
had been repeatedly convicted both in Sweden and Denmark of similar
offences (essentially relating to the forgery of passports which
asylum-seekers had presented to immigration authorities).
The applicant did not lodge any ordinary appeal against the
District Court's deportation order which thus gained legal force.
On 11 April 1997 the Legal Aid Authority (Rättshjälpsmyndigheten)
refused the applicant legal aid for seeking to have the deportation
order quashed pursuant to chapter 7, section 16 of the Aliens Act. On
25 April 1997 he lodged a request to that effect with the Government.
Assisted by counsel, he alleged that as the leader of the Swedish
section of the association "Sohl", he had allegedly helped thousands
of Iranians (notably deserters, jews and converts to Christianity)
leave Iran illegally and enter Sweden with a view to seeking asylum.
The applicant furthermore alleged that he had repeatedly criticised the
Iranian regime in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German media and that
he was well-known both in Europe and Iran for his assistance to
asylum-seeking Iranians. Finally, he referred to his activities within
the guerrilla movement in Iran.
On 29 May 1997 the applicant requested the National Immigration
Board to clarify whether the declaration of refugee status which he had
allegedly received earlier on had been withdrawn. Reference was made
to the Board's letter to him of 1 October 1996.
On 9 June 1997 the Legal Aid Board (Rättshjälpsnämnden) dismissed
the applicant's appeal against the legal aid refusal of 11 April 1997.
In an opinion to the Government dated 16 June 1997 the Swedish
Embassy in Iran considered that the applicant's alleged guerrilla and
political activities were not of such a character that they constituted
an obstacle to the enforcement of the deportation order. There were
various indications that the Iranian authorities were aware of the
applicant's extensive smuggling activities. On the other hand, the
Swedish Embassy suspected that without contacts to high-ranking Iranian
officials it would not have been possible for the applicant to organise
those activities. In those circumstances there should be no risk for
him to return to Iran. However, if his contacts were unable to protect
him he might run a certain risk of being imprisoned for up to ten years
for having organised "activities aimed at jeopardising Iran's national
security". A more severe sentence could not be totally excluded.
On 3 July 1997 the Government dismissed the applicant's request
to have the deportation order quashed, considering that there were no
obstacles to the enforcement thereof nor any other special reasons for
granting the request.
On 7 July 1997 the applicant again requested the Government to
quash the deportation order, now essentially referring to a book and
a booklet written by him which had allegedly been published in Iran.
The book concerned religious matters and some copies thereof had
allegedly been confiscated by the Iranian authorities. The booklet
contained advice to prospective asylum-seekers. Counsel for the
applicant stated that he had been aware of the book for a long time and
that the booklet had been written three years ago.
On 7 July 1997 the Government (the Acting Minister of Justice)
suspended the enforcement of the deportation order pending the outcome
of the applicant's fresh petition. It was noted that the applicant
would be released on parole at the earliest on 8 July 1997. The
Government therefore ordered his detention pursuant to chapter 6,
section 2, subsection 1 of the Aliens Act and informed him of his right
to request the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) to review
the detention order.
Following the applicant's release on parole on 8 July 1997 he was
immediately detained pursuant to the Aliens Act on the basis of the
Government's decision of 7 July 1997.
The applicant alleges that, on 29 July 1997, the Government
supplemented its decision of 7 July 1997 with the reasons for his
detention, i.e. the risk that he might otherwise continue his criminal
activities or evade enforcement. The applicant furthermore alleges that
the Government did not deal with his request for legal aid in the
review proceedings.
It appears that, on or after 29 July 1997, the applicant
requested the Supreme Administrative Court to review the lawfulness of
his detention under the Aliens Act. On 14 August 1997 the Supreme
Administrative Court upheld the detention order. On 5 September 1997
the Government decided to prolong the applicant's detention.
In a further opinion to the Government the Swedish Embassy in
Iran in essence maintained its position of 16 June 1997 but corrected
its previous opinion to the effect that the maximum prison sentence
which the applicant might risk if returned to Iran was three years.
On 26 September 1997 the applicant withdrew his second petition
to the Government to have the deportation order quashed. On
30 September 1997 the Government struck the request off its list but
maintained the detention order.
On 6 October 1997 the National Immigration Board suspended the
enforcement of the deportation order until further notice, having
regard to the proceedings before the Commission. On 23 October 1997
the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal
against the detention order of 5 September 1997.
B. Relevant domestic law
According to the Aliens Act, the possible deportation of an alien
who has been found guilty of a criminal offence shall be considered by
the court which convicted him or by the appeal court (chapter 4,
section 8 and chapter 7, section 8). A person who is to be regarded as
a refugee in need of a sanctuary in Sweden may not be deported on
account of a criminal offence unless certain requirements are met
(chapter 4, section 10). These restrictions are brought into effect
when the alien has been issued with a declaration confirming his
refugee status (chapter 3, section 6).
The Government may quash a deportation order which has been
issued by a court following the alien's conviction and which has gained
legal force. Alternatively, the Government may suspend the enforcement
of the deportation order by granting a residence permit limited in time
(chapter 7, section 16).
An adult alien may be detained for up to two months and
exceptionally for a longer period inter alia in order to prepare the
enforcement of a deportation order and provided he or she might
otherwise go into hiding or take up or continue criminal activities in
Sweden (chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 (3) and section 4). An alien
may furthermore be detained if his or her identity is unclear either
on the arrival in Sweden or when a residence permit is being sought
(chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 (1)). Detention may also be ordered
if it is necessary for the purpose of inquiring into the alien's right
to remain in Sweden (chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 (2)).
Detention under the Aliens Act can be ordered by, for instance,
the competent Minister if the Government is the authority dealing with
the principal matter (chapter 6, section 9). In that case an appeal
unlimited in time lies with the Supreme Administrative Court
(chapter 7, section 7).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that his forthcoming deportation to Iran
would violate Article 3 of the Convention by subjecting him to a real
risk of capital punishment, torture or other inhuman treatment. He
essentially refers to his activities as a "refugee smuggler", to his
criticism of the Iranian regime in media and to his book which was
allegedly published in Iran on 3 June 1997 and distributed in three
cities on 26 June 1997.
2. In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant also complains
that he had no effective remedy against the National Immigration
Board's decision of 10 May 1995 of which he was never officially
notified.
In the same submissions the applicant furthermore complains that
he had no effective remedy against the Government's decision of
3 July 1997 not to quash the deportation order.
In these respects the applicant invokes Article 13 of the
Convention.
3. In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant furthermore
complains that his first request for a court review of the lawfulness
of his detention under the Aliens Act was not decided speedily. No such
review was possible before 29 July 1997, when the Government allegedly
provided the reasons for its detention order of 7 July 1997. The
applicant invokes Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.
4. In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant finally
complains that he was denied legal aid both in the proceedings before
the Government and in the proceedings regarding his detention for
deportation purposes. He invokes no particular Convention provision.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 3 July 1997 and registered on
7 July 1997.
On 7 July 1997 the Commission decided to communicate to the
respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of
Procedure, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. Pursuant
to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, it also decided to indicate to
the Government that it would be desirable in the interests of the
parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to enforce the
deportation order concerning the applicant until the Commission had
examined the application at the latest on 19 September 1997.
On 30 July 1997 the applicant submitted further complaints.
On 18 September 1997 the Commission's indication under Rule 36
was prolonged until 31 October 1997 and, on 30 October 1997, it was
prolonged until 12 December 1997.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
12 November 1997, after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for that
purpose.
On 11 December 1997 the Commission's indication under Rule 36 was
prolonged until 23 January 1998.
On 12 December 1997 the applicant was granted legal aid.
The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on
16 December 1997.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that his expulsion to Iran would violate
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention by subjecting him to a real risk
of capital punishment, torture or other inhuman treatment. He
essentially refers to his activities as a "refugee smuggler", to his
criticism of the Iranian regime in media and to his book which was
allegedly published in Iran on 3 June 1997 and distributed in three
cities on 26 June 1997. He invokes 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."
The Government consider that the domestic remedies have not been
exhausted, since the applicant did not appeal against the District
Court's judgment of 7 January 1997 which comprised the deportation
order. In that judgment the applicant was, according to the
Government's interpretation thereof, no longer considered a refugee,
given that he was no longer in need of protection in Sweden.
Accordingly, the special criteria applicable to the expulsion of a
refugee did not apply. The applicant's petition to the Government with
a view to having the deportation order quashed must be seen as an
outflow of the institute of pardon and cannot be considered a remedy
for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The
examination of that petition did not amount to a review of the District
Court's decision, given that the Government could only consider those
circumstances which had not been examined in the criminal proceedings.
Finally, the Government note that the applicant withdrew his second
petition with a view to having the deportation order quashed.
In the alternative, the Government consider that the application
is manifestly ill-founded. The Swedish authorities have gained
considerable experience in examining asylum cases concerning Iranians.
There have been no reports of ill-treatment of Iranians returned from
Sweden following a refusal to grant them a residence permit. Many
Iranian asylum seekers and holders of residence permits in Sweden are
able to travel freely between the two countries. There is no indication
that the applicant is or has been wanted by the Iranian authorities.
The Government do not dispute that he is well-known for his smuggling
activities and cannot exclude that he may have made critical statements
about the Iranian regime both in Sweden and other countries. However,
the Government are unable to confirm that the applicant smuggled
persons out of Iran. On the contrary, various court records and
investigations show that many of the Iranians whom the applicant has
assisted left Iran lawfully and were only subsequently smuggled into
Western countries. The Government cannot confirm the applicant's
allegation that he has not returned to Iran since 1987. If, as he seems
to have stated earlier on, he has visited Iran after arriving in Sweden
this fact would speak against his assertions before the Commission. The
Government furthermore note that he has refused to provide any
verifiable information about the association "Sohl". According to the
Swedish Embassy in Iran it almost certainly does not exist. The book
allegedly written by the applicant has most likely never been published
and the contents thereof would not seem to be blasphemous against
Islam. Nor is there any certainty as to the alleged confiscation by the
Iranian authorities of the booklet written by the applicant. At any
rate this publication does not advise Iranians how they could leave
their country illegally but rather how they could enter a Western
country. Finally, the Government strongly believe that the applicant
has provided the Swedish authorities with incorrect and incomplete
information regarding his background in Iran and his activities in
Sweden.
The applicant considers that he has exhausted domestic remedies
by turning to the Government, that body being the highest Swedish
authority in aliens cases. Moreover, in examining his request that the
deportation order be quashed the Government were competent in some
respects to make the same assessment as the District Court. There was
no reason to expect the Government to reconsider its decision of 3 July
1997 which therefore must be considered the final one for the purposes
of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The applicant furthermore
contends that his return to Iran would place him at risk of treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3).
The Commission considers that it is not required to decide
whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any
appearance of a violation of the Articles invoked as, under Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, it "may only deal with the matter after
all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law ...".
The Commission has recently rejected an application against
Sweden due to the applicant's failure timely to seek leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court against a judgment comprising a deportation order
(see No. 34944/97, Dec. 8.9.97, unpublished). In another application
against Sweden the applicant had likewise not requested leave to appeal
against a deportation order issued in criminal proceedings against him
but had later petitioned the Government to quash the order
(No. 20002/92, Dec. 5.4.95, unpublished). In that case the Commission
accepted that, in so far as there had been a change in the relevant
circumstances, the applicant could be excused for having failed to seek
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court before those changes had occurred.
In the present case the Commission recalls that the applicant did
not appeal against the District Court's judgment of 7 January 1997 in
which his deportation was ordered. Had such an appeal failed, he would
have had a further possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court. Before the Commission the applicant has alleged that his
book was published and distributed in Iran in June 1997, i.e. after the
District Court's judgment had gained legal force. However, it
transpires from the applicant's second petition to the Government dated
7 July 1997 that the book and the booklet had been written some time
ago, the booklet as much as three years earlier.
The Commission therefore finds that, unlike in Application
No. 20002/92, there is no indication that the gist of the applicant's
various allegations relating to his purported risk of being treated
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) on his return to Iran could not have
been made already in the afore-mentioned criminal proceedings and
ultimately in a request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In these circumstances the applicant's first petition to the
Government in which he sought to have the deportation order quashed
after it had already gained legal force cannot be considered a remedy
for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
Accordingly, the applicant has not exhausted the remedies available to
him under Swedish law. Moreover, an examination of the application does
not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might
have absolved him, according to the generally recognised rules of
international law, from exhausting the remedies at his disposal in the
criminal proceedings.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3
(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
2. In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant also complains
that he had no effective remedy against the National Immigration
Board's decision of 10 May 1995 of which he was never officially
notified. Moreover, he had no effective remedy against the Government's
decision of 3 July 1997. He invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention which reads as follows:
"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."
(a) As regards the lack of an effective remedy against the National
Immigration Board's decision of 10 May 1995, the Commission recalls
that pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention it may only
deal with the matter if it has been brought to its attention within a
period of six months from the date on which the final domestic decision
was taken or from the date when a continuing situation ceased to exist
(cf., e.g., No. 14807/89, Dec. 12.2.92, D.R. 72, p. 148).
The Commission notes that the applicant was made aware of the
National Immigration Board's decision of 10 May 1995 at the latest
during the criminal proceedings ending with the District Court's
judgment of 7 January 1997. However, this complaint was introduced only
on 30 July 1997, that is more than six months later.
It follows that this aspect of the complaint must be rejected
pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention for non-
compliance with the six months' rule.
(b) As regards the lack of an effective remedy against the
Government's decision of 3 July 1997, the Commission recalls its
finding in para. 1 above that, prior to that decision, the applicant
had had at his disposal ordinary remedies of which he failed to avail
himself in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. The
Commission considers that in such circumstances Article 13 (Art. 13)
of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring an extraordinary
remedy such as the possibility to petition the Government to quash the
deportation order. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant had no
remedy against the Government's refusal of such a petition does not
raise any issue under Article 13 (Art. 13). Accordingly, there is no
indication of any violation of that provision.
It follows that this aspect of the complaint must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant furthermore
complains that he was denied a speedy examination of his first request
for a court review of the lawfulness of his detention under the Aliens
Act. He invokes Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention which
reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or
detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which
the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily
by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not
lawful."
The Commission recalls that the question whether proceedings
within the meaning of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) complied with the
condition of speed cannot be defined in abstracto but must be assessed
in the light of the circumstances of the particular case (see, e.g.,
Eur. Court HR, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October
1986, Series A no. 107, p. 20, para. 55). The Commission must take
account of the general conduct of the proceedings and the extent to
which delays can be attributed to the applicant or his legal
representative (see, e.g., No. 11531/85, Dec. 7.10.87, D.R. 53, pp.
128, 139 with further reference).
In the present case the Commission notes that already the
Government's decision of 7 July 1997 conferred on the applicant the
right to seek a court review of the lawfulness of his detention under
the Aliens Act. It is true that the decision of 7 July 1997 only
referred to chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 of the Aliens Act and
not expressly to any particular number in that subsection.
Nevertheless, given that the applicant had already been issued with a
deportation order, he cannot have been in any doubt as to the legal
provision on which the deprivation of his liberty had been based,
namely subsection 1 (3) of the said provision which covered detention
for enforcement purposes.
In these circumstances the Commission does not find that the
applicant was obliged to await the reasons allegedly adduced by the
Government on 29 July 1997 before turning to the Supreme Administrative
Court. Accordingly, the proceedings to which this complaint refers must
be considered to have started only with the applicant's request which
appears to have been lodged on or after 29 July 1997. They ended with
the Supreme Administrative Court's decision of 14 August 1997 and thus
lasted a maximum of approximately sixteen days. In the circumstances
of the case such a delay cannot be considered to have exceeded the
period permissible under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the
Convention. Accordingly, there is no indication of a violation of that
provision.
It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
4. In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant finally
complains that he was denied legal aid both in the proceedings before
the Government and in the proceedings regarding his detention for
deportation purposes. He invokes no particular Convention provision.
(a) As regards the denial of legal aid in the proceedings with a view
to having the deportation order quashed, the Commission finds that they
did not involve any determination of the applicant's civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him. Accordingly,
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is not applicable.
It follows that this aspect of the complaint is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
(b) As regards the purported denial of legal aid in the proceedings
for the review of the applicant's detention under the Aliens Act, this
matter could in principle raise an issue under the above-mentioned
Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention as regards the
lawfulness of the detention (cf., e.g., Bouamar v. Belgium judgment of
29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 24, para. 60).
However, the Commission finds no substantiation of the
applicant's allegation that he requested legal aid in the review
proceedings. Accordingly, there is no indication of any violation of
Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.
It follows that this aspect of the complaint must be rejected as
being 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.
M. de SALVIA S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy