Application No. 13905/88
by Per Werner OLSEN
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 13 July 1990, the following members being present:
MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
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 22 March 1988
by Per Werner OLSEN against Sweden and registered on 2 June 1988 under
file No. 13905/88;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the Government's written observations of
14 November 1989 and 18 May 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 a Swedish citizen, born in 1948 and residing
in Kristinehamn.
On 17 December 1985 the applicant started corresponding with a
Polish woman living in Poland. He went to Poland to visit her on
21 December 1986 and stayed with her for a couple of weeks. She then
visited the applicant for a month in Sweden in April-May 1987. The
applicant went to Poland again on 19 June 1987 and on 3 July 1987 he
married the woman. He stayed for another week in Poland and then went
back to Sweden.
On 16 September 1987 the applicant's wife obtained an exit
visa in Poland. She made a request for a Swedish visa and residence
permit, so that she could join the applicant in Sweden together with
her daughter. Her request was rejected by the Swedish Immigration
Board (statens invandrarverk) on 26 November 1987 on the ground that
her relationship with the applicant was not sufficiently established.
In a letter to the Board of 17 December 1987 the applicant
complained about the decision. By a letter of 11 February 1988 the
Immigration Board answered the applicant that no appeal lay against its
refusal of a residence permit and that his letter would not lead to a
re-examination of the case. The Board indicated that its decision was
based on the length of the applicant's relationship with his wife and
on how long they had lived together. The Board had also assessed how
stable the relationship between the applicant and his wife was in other
respects. This assessment was based on their own statements. The Board
informed the applicant that his wife could make a new request for a
residence permit at a later date.
On 2 June 1988 the applicant's wife was granted a permit to
stay in Sweden from 2 June 1988 to 2 December 1988. This permit was
prolonged on 29 November 1989 and on 29 May 1989.
On 25 April 1990 the applicant's wife was granted a permanent
residence permit in Sweden.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained of an interference with his right to
found a family. He maintained that the refusal to let his wife come to
Sweden reduced their possibilities to have children as they are both
over 40 years old. He invoked Article 12 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 22 March 1988 and registered
on 2 June 1988.
On 12 July 1989 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
14 November 1989.
The applicant was invited to submit, before 8 January 1990, any
written observations in reply. No reply was received. Two further
letters to the applicant dated 1 February and 16 March 1990 remained
unanswered.
On 18 May 1990 the Government informed the Commission that the
applicant's wife had received a permanent residence permit in Sweden on
25 April 1990.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant's wife has now received
a permanent residence permit in Sweden and that the applicant has not
replied to communications from the Commission's Secretary. In these
circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend
to pursue his application before the Commission within the meaning of
Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
It further considers that the respect for Human Rights as
defined in the Convention does not require that the Commission
continue its examination.
It follows that the application should be struck off the list
of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES
Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy