THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised

as follows:

The applicant who describes himself as stateless was born in 1930 and

is at present resident in F. (Sweden). When introducing his application

he was held in detention on remand in Stockholm.

From the applicant's statements and the documents he has submitted it

appears that he was arrested on .. September 1971 on suspicion of

theft. At the same time the police seized a number of documents in his

apartment. Further documents were seized on later occasions in another

building and in the apartment.

The applicant was convicted of theft at the Stockholm District Court

(Stockholms tingsrätt) on .. September 1971 and given a suspended

sentence. The Court also ordered that the applicant should be expelled

and forbidden to return to Sweden within ten years. Both the applicant

and the Public Prosecutor appealed but later withdrew their appeals.

The Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) therefore struck the appeals

off the list of cases on .. December 1971.

The applicant and two other persons then applied to the King-in-Council

(Kungl. Maj:t) that the expulsion order should be repealed but this

petition was rejected on .. January 1972.

The Provisional Authority in Stockholm (länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län)

then considered the question of how the expulsion order should be

executed. In a decision dated .. January 1972 the Provisional Authority

noted that the applicant's United States passport had been revoked and

that he had obtained a Swedish travel document. Moreover, it was

recorded that the applicant had lost his United States citizenship on

.. August 1971 after he had renounced it. The United States Embassy in

Stockholm had stated that the applicant could not be received in the

United States before the matter had been investigated and a decision

to admit him had been taken in that country. The applicant's fiancée

had submitted a copy of a draft order dated in June 1970, the

authenticity of which had not been proved. In accordance with the

relevant provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act (utlänningslagen) the

Provisional Authority referred the question of execution to the

National Board for Immigration and Naturalisation (Statens

invandrarverk) for a decision. The applicant has not indicated whether

or not any such decision has as yet been taken.

The applicant also complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner

(Justitieombudsmannen), inter alia, about the alleged refusal to allow

him to see his defence counsel. The Parliamentary Commissioner decided

on .. January 1972 that no action was called for as there was no reason

to suspect that any official who had dealt with the pre-trial

investigation had committed any error or shown negligence.

Furthermore the applicant complained to the Public Prosecutor and to

the police authorities in Stockholm alleging that he had been deprived

of certain property which had been seized by the police in connection

with his arrest and shortly afterwards. The Public Prosecutor decided

on .. April 1972 that there was no basis for prosecuting anybody for

negligence in carrying out his official duties. He noted that certain

carbons referred to in the applicant's complaint had been returned to

the applicant and that an identity card which had been shown not to

have been issued for the applicant had been forwarded to the United

States authorities. As regards the remainder of the belongings listed

by the applicant, the Public Prosecutor stated that there was no

evidence of these having been seized by the police. He found, however,

that there had been certain deficiencies in drawing up the records of

the seizure and a failure to notify the applicant without delay as to

the property which had been seized. The Public Prosecutor then referred

the matter to the Chief Constable (polismästaren) of Stockholm for such

action as he might find appropriate.

The Chief Constable decided on .. November 1972 that no action was

called for apart from drawing the attention of the police officers

concerned to the great importance of observing the strict formalities

laid down for keeping records of seizure. In particular, the records

should set out, in detail, all actions which had been taken in such a

way that the chronological order of events became clear. Moreover, the

objects should be carefully described.

In addition to the above documents the applicant has also submitted a

copy of complaint dated .. January 1972 addressed to the Parliamentary

Commissioner in which two of the applicant's friends criticized the

police investigation and the evidence produced by the police at the

trial and accused the police of bias. In particular, it was maintained

that, contrary to what had been stated at the trial, the applicant

could expect to be sentenced to a long period of imprisonment for

desertion if he was forced to return to the United States. The

applicant has not submitted any information as to the decision of the

Parliamentary Commissioner with regard to this complaint.

In a letter dated 4 December 1972 the Commission's Secretary asked the

applicant to submit at once information on the following points:

"- In what way do you allege that your expulsion to the United States

or to any other country to which you are likely to be expelled would

be contrary to any of the specific rights and freedoms defined in the

Convention or in the Protocols Nos 1 and 4?

- have you received any further information as to when your expulsion

is expected to take place and as to the country to which you will be

expelled?

- have you made any further appeal to the National Board for

Immigration and Naturalisation (Statens invandrarverk) or the

King-in-Council (Kungl. Maj:t) with regard to the execution of the

expulsion order and have any further decisions been taken in this

respect by the competent authorities?  What were the grounds for such

appeals, if any?"

The applicant was also requested to submit copies of all further

decisions concerning the execution of the expulsion order including the

decision taken by the King-in-Council on .. January 1972.

The applicant replied to these questions in a letter dated .. December

1972. He stated that he expected to be sent to the United States and

that his expulsion would result in a long period of imprisonment for

nothing more than political reasons. The applicant also said that he

and his lawyer did not know the date when the expulsion order would be

executed as the file was marked "Secret". He claimed that he had made

a desperate appeal to the National Board for Immigration and

Naturalisation without receiving any reply.

Furthermore, the applicant submitted a copy of the decision taken by

the King-in-Council of .. January 1972. The decision does not give any

reason for refusing the request.

The applicant also submitted a copy of a letter written by him on ..

January 1972 to the King-in-Council. In this letter the applicant

claimed that his return to the United States would result in life

imprisonment or, at least, many years in prison. He stated that he had

served in the United States Armed Forces for seventeen years in Korea

and Vietnam. According to the applicant he had the rank of Master

Sergeant when he fled to Sweden in July 1970. The applicant also stated

that he wanted to stay in Sweden and marry his Swedish fiancée.

In his application form and letters submitted to the Commission the

applicant has complained of the following matters:

- his alleged ill-treatment by the police at the time of his arrest on

.. September 1971;

- the alleged refusal to allow him to consult his lawyer for a period

of two weeks or to receive visits from his fiancée and friends and the

alleged withholding of all his outgoing mail while he was in detention

on remand;

- the failure of the authorities to provide him with an interpretation

from Swedish to English;

- the conduct of his trial at the District Court in particular the

alleged refusal to allow anybody but witnesses for the prosecution to

appear;

- the expulsion order as a result of which he was likely to be sent to

a country (the United States) where his life and freedom would be in

great danger;

- the alleged denial of his right to appeal;

- the seizure by the police of certain documents and other private

property belonging to him and the alleged failure of the police to

return this property;

- the failure of the authorities to deliver to him, until November 1972

four letters from a friend dated in November and December 1971;

- the detrimental effects on him and his fiancée of having to live

under the threat of the expulsion order;

The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 6 (2) and (3) (a) (c) and

(d), 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 26 and 50 of the Convention and Articles 2 and

4 of Protocol No. 4.

He claims damages to the amount of 250,000 Swedish Crowns for the loss

of property and 50,000 for having been ill-treated while in police

custody.

The applicant has also asked the Commission to request the Swedish

authorities to suspend all action until the matter before the

Commission has been settled.

THE LAW

1.   The Commission has first examined the applicant's complaints

insofar as he complains of:

(a)  his alleged ill-treatment by the police at the time of his arrest

on .. September 1971;

(b)  the alleged refusal to allow him to consult his lawyer for a

period of two weeks or to receive visits from his fiancée and friends

and the alleged withholding of all his outgoing mail while he was in

detention on remand;

(c)  the failure of the authorities to provide him with an

interpretation from Swedish to English;

(d)  the conduct of his trial at the District Court in particular the

alleged refusal to allow anybody but witnesses for the prosecution to

appear;

(e)  the seizure by the police of certain documents and other private

property belonging to him and the alleged failure of the police to

return this property.

In examining these complaints the Commission has had regard to the

provisions of Articles 3, 5 (2), 6 (1) and 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e) and

8 (Art. 3, 5-2, 6-1, 6-3-a, 6-3-b, 6-3-d, 6-3-e, 8) of the Convention

and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the

facts alleged by the applicant in this connection disclose any

appearance of a violation of these provisions as, under Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all

domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally

recognised rules of international law.

In the present case the applicant failed to raise these complaints

before the competent Swedish courts or authorities and has, therefore,

not exhausted the remedies available to him under Swedish law. In this

connection, the Commission observes that the various complaints made

by the applicant or his friends to the police or the Public Prosecutor

with regard to certain of these matters did not constitute effective

remedies for the purpose of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

Moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,

including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the

applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international

law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the application must in

these respects be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3) of the

Convention.

2.   The applicant has further complained of the expulsion order made

by the District Court on .. November 1971 as a result of which he fears

that he will be expelled to the United States where his life and

freedom would allegedly be in great danger.

In this connection, the Commission first recalls that according to its

established case-law the right to asylum and the freedom from expulsion

are not as such included among the rights and freedoms set forth in the

Convention (see the decisions on the admissibility of applications No

2134/64, Yearbook, Vol. 7, p. 328, No. 1611/62, Yearbook, Vol. 8, p.

168 and No. 3040/67, Yearbook, Vol. 10, pp. 522-524).

Nevertheless, the Commission has frequently held that the expulsion of

a person may, in certain exceptional circumstances raise an issue under

the Convention and in particular under Article 3, namely, where there

are serious grounds to fear that the person concerned will be

subjected, in the State to which he is to be sent, to treatment which

is in violation of this Article (see decisions on the admissibility of

applications No. 1802/62, Yearbook, Vol. 6, p. 480 and No. 5012/71,

Collection of Decisions, Vol. 40, p. 62). The Commission here notes

that, in accordance with Swedish law, the order did not specify to

which country the applicant was to be expelled but the Commission has

considered the obvious possibility that he might be expelled to the

United States of America. However, the applicant withdrew his appeal

to the Court of Appeal against the District Court's expulsion order.

He has therefore not exhausted the remedies available to him under

Swedish law in respect of the order itself. The Commission again finds

that there are no special circumstances which could have absolved him

from the duty, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, to exhaust

all domestic remedies. In particular there is not the slightest

evidence to support the applicant's assertion that he was denied his

right to appeal. On the contrary, he appears to have abandoned his

appeal without any form of coercion.

3.   The Commission has next considered the question whether the

execution of the expulsion order should be looked at as a separate

matter having regard to the fact that in this respect the applicant had

apparently exhausted the remedies available to him under Swedish law.

However, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine this

question in the present case as even assuming that the execution of the

order should be considered separately, the applicant's complaint in

this respect, which again is only to be considered under Article 3

(Art. 3), is, in any event, inadmissible on other grounds.

In the present case there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the

applicant would be subjected to any such treatment if he were to be

sent to the United States which itself is not certain but, as mentioned

above, is obviously possible. In this connection the Commission refers

to its decision on the admissibility of applications Nos. 3803/68 and

3804/68 v. Sweden (unpublished) with regard to the complaint made under

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention by two deserters from the United

States Armed Forces whose expulsion from Sweden had been ordered and

who expected to be charged with desertion if they were sent to the

United States.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention.

4.   The applicant has further complained of the alleged delay in

delivering certain letters to him and of the detrimental effects on him

and his fiancée by reason of his having to live under the threat of the

expulsion order.

It is true that Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention secures to

everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home

and his correspondence.

However, an examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has

been submitted, does not disclose any situation which could amount to

a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and

in particular in the above Article.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION

INADMISSIBLE