D. AND OTHERS (no. 2) v. SWEDEN
Doc ref: 21649/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45621
Document date: September 8, 1993
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Application No. 21649/93
D. and Others (no. 2)
against
Sweden
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 8 September 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES
(paras. 1 - 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
(paras. 4 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
(paras. 12 - 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 19 - 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
APPENDIX: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. THE PARTIES
1. The present Report, which was drawn up in accordance with
Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, concerns the application
brought by Mr. D. and Others against Sweden.
2. The applicants are husband, wife and daughter, all Peruvian
citizens born in 1965, 1965 and 1991, respectively. Before the
Commission they are represented by Mr. Sten De Geer, a lawyer
practising in Stockholm.
3. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent,
Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
4. The facts of the case as submitted at the admissibility stage are
set out in the Commission's decision of 8 July 1993 as to the
admissibility of the application (see the attached Appendix). They may
be summarised as follows:
5. The applicants' requests for asylum in Sweden were rejected by
the Government on 8 July 1992 and the applicants were ordered to be
expelled to Peru.
6. The applicants' subsequent request for residence permits on
humanitarian grounds was rejected by the National Immigration Board
(statens invandrarverk) on 23 March 1993.
7. On 16 April 1993 the Board stayed execution of its decision
pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Commission.
8. Before the Commission the applicants complained that, if returned
to Peru, the first applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary
to Article 3 of the Convention as a result of previous torture
experiences in Peru and his present mental state. They further
complained that the absence of a right to appeal against the decision
of the National Immigration Board violated Article 13 of the
Convention.
9. The application having been declared admissible by the Commission
on 8 July 1993, the Government granted the applicants permanent
residence permits in Sweden on 12 August 1993.
10. The Government submit that in view of the granting of residence
permits, the applicants can no longer be considered victims of any of
the alleged violations of the Convention.
11. The applicants state that they do not wish to withdraw their
application, but wish to reach a friendly settlement between the
parties.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
12. The application was introduced on 23 March 1993 and registered
on 8 April 1993.
13. On 8 April 1993 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of
the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was desirable in the
interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not
to return the applicants to Peru until the Commission had had an
opportunity to examine the application.
14. On 12 May 1993 the Commission decided to prolong the indication
under Rule 36 until 9 July 1993.
15. Following an extension of the time-limit the Government's
observations were submitted on 11 May 1993. The applicants'
observations in reply were submitted on 3 June 1993.
16. On 8 July 1993 the Commission declared the application admissible
and decided to request further observations from the parties in regard
to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It
also prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until further notice.
17. On 8 September 1993 the Commission granted legal aid to the
applicants.
18. On 8 September 1993 the Commission adopted the present Report,
the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
19. According to the constant case-law of the Commission and the
European Court of Human Rights an applicant who obtains adequate
redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the
Convention cannot, or cannot any longer, claim to be a "victim" of a
violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set
forth in the Convention (cf. for example No. 9320/81, Dec. 15.3.84,
D.R. 36 p. 24, No. 10259/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 170,
No. 12719/87, Dec. 3.5.88, D.R. 56 p. 237 and Eur. Court H.R., Eckle
judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).
20. The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicants
have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden.
21. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the
applicants have obtained adequate redress at the domestic level for the
alleged violations of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention.
22. The Commission concludes therefore that the matter has been
resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention. It further finds that respect for human rights as defined
in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination
thereof.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES;
ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT; and
DECIDES TO SEND THE REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS for
information, to send it also to the parties and to publish it.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)