AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 16766/90
by P.T. and J.T.
against Switzerland
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
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 15 June 1990
by P.T. and J.T. against Switzerland and registered on 21 June 1990
under file No. 16766/90;
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 submitted by the applicants may be summarised as
follows.
The applicants, German citizens born in 1940 and 1957,
respectively, reside at Meggen in Switzerland. The first applicant is
a commercial artist (Graphiker), the second an economist and lawyer.
The applicants have two children born in 1984 and 1987, respectively.
The first applicant lived in the German Democratic Republic
until 1982. The applicants married in 1982 and then lived in
Czechoslovakia from 1983 until 1986. The first applicant moved to the
Federal Republic of Germany in 1986, the second applicant together
with their first child in 1987.
In January 1990 the applicants moved to Switzerland. On
16 April 1990 they applied for asylum, claiming that in the Federal
Republic of Germany they had not found employment; as a result,
their children, who are apparently ill, could not be afforded adequate
care.
On 27 April 1990 the Delegate for Refugees (Delegierter für
das Flüchtlingswesen) dismissed the request and ordered the
applicants' expulsion.
On 13 June 1990 the Federal Department of Justice and Police
(Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) dismissed their
appeal (Beschwerde) and ordered them immediately to leave Switzerland.
In its decision the Department found that economic or professional
difficulties did not suffice for the granting of asylum.
The Department noted that the applicants were German citizens and
that they had last lived in the Federal Republic of Germany. As they
had only applied for asylum after they encountered difficulties in
Switzerland in finding employment, it could not be said that asylum
was requested in order to obtain protection against serious
disadvantages in the Federal Rupublic of Germany. The Department
concluded that the right to asylum could not serve to fulfil the
professional aspirations of foreigners.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain of their imminent expulsion from
Switzerland. In their view, it has not been sufficiently
considered that, while still residing in Eastern Europe, they were
subjected to political persecution, and that their children are
disabled. The applicants rely on Articles 3-6, 8 and 12-14 of the
Convention.
PROCEEDINGS
The application was introduced on 15 June 1990 and registered
on 21 June 1990.
On 21 June 1990 the President decided not to apply Rule 36 of
the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
THE LAW
The applicants complain under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention of their imminent expulsion from Switzerland. In their
view it has not been sufficiently considered that they were subjected
to political persecution in Eastern Europe and that their children are
disabled.
The Commission has constantly held that the right of an alien
to reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by the
Convention. However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances
involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a
serious fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention,
which prohibits inhuman treatment (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R.
47 p. 286 ; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July
1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32 et seq.).
In the present case the applicants have not shown that upon
their expulsion to the Federal Republic of Germany they would be
subjected to inhuman treatment. They have also not shown in what
respect their children would require treatment which could not be
afforded to them there.
As a result, the Commission cannot find that the applicants'
expulsion would be contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention
on account of a risk of inhuman treatment in the Federal Republic of
Germany.
In any event after their return to the Federal Republic of
Germany the applicants can bring an application before the Commission
under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention in respect of any
violation of their Convention rights by the German authorities.
Insofar as the applicants further complain about their
expulsion under Articles 4-6 (Art. 4, 5, 6), 8 (Art. 8) and 12-14
(Art. 12, 13, 14) of the Convention, the Commission has examined these
remaining complaints as they have been submitted. However, after
considering these complaints as a whole, the Commission finds that
they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions
invoked by the applicants.
The application is therefore 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.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (J. A. FROWEIN)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy