Lexploria

Application No. 15658/89

Abdel-Qader Hussein Yassin MANSI

against

SWEDEN

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 March 1990)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................ 3

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED .................................. 5

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to Application No. 15658/89 introduced

against Sweden by Mr. Abdel-Qader Hussein Yassin Mansi on 19 October

1989 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The application was registered on

the same day.

The applicant was represented by Mr. Per Stadig, a lawyer

practising in Stockholm.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,

Ambassador Hans Corell, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign

Affairs, Stockholm.

2. On 7 December 1989 the European Commission of Human Rights

declared the application admissible and retained for further

examination the issues arising from the failure to comply with the

indications under Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.*

The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28

para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

(a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the parties

an examination of the petition and, if need be, an

investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

after an exchange of views with the Commission;

(b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties

concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement

of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as

defined in this Convention."

3. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 9 March 1990 it adopted this Report,

which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is

confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

__________

* This decision is public and can be obtained from the

Commission's Secretary. The decision will be published in

the Commission's official publication entitled Decisions and

Reports.

The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted.

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

PART I

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. The applicant is a Jordanian citizen of Palestinian origin,

born in 1946. He was deported to Jordan on 21 October 1989. In

January 1990 the applicant returned to Sweden where he is now staying.

5. On 18 April 1987 the applicant arrived in Sweden. He asked for

political asylum in Sweden and requested a residence and a work permit.

He stated that for political reasons he could not return to Jordan.

6. On 11 April 1988 the National Immigration Board (statens

invandrarverk) in accordance with Section 69 of the 1980 Aliens Act

(utlänningslagen) decided to transfer the applicant's case to the

Government for a decision. The Board gave as its opinion that it did

not exclude that the reasons given by the applicant against his

expulsion to Jordan were such that, according to Section 6 of the 1980

Act, he should not be refused the right to remain in Sweden.

7. On 20 April 1989 the Government refused the applicant's

request and decided to expel him. Having regard inter alia to an

opinion of the National Police Board (rikspolisstyrelsen), the

Government found that the reasons invoked by the applicant were, in

important respects, not credible. He could not be considered to be a

refugee according to Section 3 of the 1980 Act or according to the

1951 Geneva Convention and there were no such reasons to let him

remain in Sweden as envisaged by Section 6 of the Act.

8. On 12 May 1989 the Police Authority of Stockholm referred the

matter of the enforcement of the expulsion order to the National

Immigration Board. Before the Board the applicant invoked the results

of a medical examination of 11 May 1989. He alleged that he risked

political persecution in Jordan and that he had previously been

imprisoned and tortured in Jordan.

9. The National Immigration Board in an opinion of 21 June 1989,

while transferring the case to the Government, stated that the

circumstances of the case were such that the applicant, having invoked

particular reasons against returning to Jordan, should enjoy the

protection of Section 6 of the 1980 Act. The Board proposed that the

Government should revoke the expulsion order.

10. On 19 October 1989 the Government found that there were no

obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion of the applicant.

The Government noted that the applicant had not prior to the decision

to expel him alleged that he had been tortured. They found that

neither the explanation he had given for this behaviour, nor the

allegation of torture, were credible. The Government furthermore

pointed out that the applicant had given contradictory information as

to the length of his imprisonment and they found that the applicant's

allegation of political persecution was not credible.

11. The present application was introduced with the Commission on

19 October 1989. On the same day the President of 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 President also decided, in

accordance with Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to

indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of

the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the

Commission not to deport the applicant to Jordan until the Commission

had had an opportunity to examine the application at its forthcoming

session from 6 to 10 November 1989. The Government were informed of

these decisions on the same day.

12. After these decisions the applicant lodged a fresh request for

a residence permit with the National Immigration Board and requested

that the enforcement of the expulsion should be stayed. These requests

were refused on 20 October 1989.

13. By letter of 24 October 1989 the Government informed the

Commission that the applicant had been expelled to Jordan on

21 October 1989.

14. Before the Commission the applicant alleged that there had

been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the ground that his

expulsion to Jordan involved a risk that he would be detained and

tortured in the way he had been tortured before. Subsequently, the

applicant alleged that he had been tortured in Jordan after the

expulsion. He further alleged that the Government violated Articles 1

and 25 of the Convention when they deported him in spite of the

indication by the Commission's President under Rule 36 of the Rules of

Procedure that he should not be expelled.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

15. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a

view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28

para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any

proposals they wished to make.

16. By letter of 11 January 1990, the Agent of the Government

submitted the following agreement which had been reached between the

applicant and the Government and which had been approved by the

Government on 11 January 1990.

"SETTLEMENT

On 7 December 1989 the European Commission of Human Rights

decided to declare admissible Application No. 15658/89 lodged

by Mr. Abdel-Qader Hussein Yassin Mansi against Sweden.

After negotiations the Swedish Government and Mr. Mansi, who

is now temporarily staying in Denmark at the expense of the

Swedish Government, have reached the following friendly

settlement on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined

in the Convention in order to terminate the proceedings before

the Commission.

1. Mr. Mansi will be granted permission to return to

Sweden and to reside in Sweden permanently. The present

prohibition to re-enter Sweden will be revoked simultaneously.

2. The Government will pay the costs for Mr. Mansi's stay

in Copenhagen and the costs for his journey from Copenhagen to

Sweden (single journey by air in economy class or by train

second class).

3. The Government will see to it that Mr. Mansi is

granted a place in a Refugee Reception Centre until other

arrangements can be made.

4. The Government will make to Mr. Mansi an ex gratia

payment in the amount of one hundred thousand (100,000)

Swedish Crowns. This sum does not include the amounts

referred to under item 2. Furthermore, this sum should be

considered as falling under Chapter 5, Section 7 of the

Enforcement Code.

5. Mr. Mansi is aware of the fact that he may be arrested

upon his return to Sweden as suspected of having committed

crimes against the Swedish Penal Code and that this matter

will have to be dealt with according to the provisions of the

said Code and the Code of Judicial Procedure.

6. The Swedish Government undertakes to use its good

offices in order to encourage the competent Jordanian

authorities to investigate the circumstances of Mr. Mansi's

treatment by the police in Amman in October and November 1989.

Mr. Mansi is willing to assist in this matter and to give

evidence, if needed.

7. The Government will compensate Mr. Mansi for his legal

fees before the Commission in the amount of fifty thousand

(50,000) Swedish Crowns, in addition to what may be paid out

by the Council of Europe toward Mr. Mansi's legal fees and

expenses.

8. Mr. Mansi declares that he has no further claims

against the Swedish Government in the matter.

__________

This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the

Swedish Government and of the European Commission of Human

Rights.

Stockholm, 9 January 1990

(signed) (signed)

Hans Corell Per Stadig

Agent of the Swedish Government Counsel for Mr. Mansi"

17. Following discussions between the Agent of the Government and

the Secretary to the Commission, the Agent of the Government addressed

the following letter to the Commission.

"Referring to our discussions regarding the friendly settlement

in the above case, I am able to inform you that the Swedish

Government, in addition to the settlement with the applicant,

makes the following statement in view of the particular

circumstances of this case.

The Government regrets that Mr. Mansi was expelled to Jordan

after the indication under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure

of the Commission had been given by the President of the

Commission that he should not be expelled."

18. The Commission, at its session on 9 March 1990, noted that

the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.

The Commission further found, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b)

of the Convention and to the statement made by the Government with

regard to the indication under Rule 36, that a friendly settlement had

been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in

the Convention.

19. For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

MANSI v. SWEDEN

MANSI v. SWEDEN

LEXI