Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 4314/69 • ECHR ID: 001-3116

Document date: February 2, 1970

  • Inbound citations: 5
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 1

X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 4314/69 • ECHR ID: 001-3116

Document date: February 2, 1970

Cited paragraphs only



THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant states that he is an Egyptian citizen, born in 1945. He

is at present detained in prison in C.

From his statements and the documents submitted by him, it appears

that, on .. March 1969, the police authorities of C. ordered the

applicant's expulsion from the Federal Republic of Germany. On .. March

the police authorities requested the District Court (Amtsgericht) of

C to order the applicant's detention pending his deportation but this

was refused by the Court on .. March. The applicant had stated that he

intended to go to Kuwait where his father lived. He also filed a

petition for asylum and was permitted to stay in Germany until May

1969.On .. October 1969, acting on a new application by the police

authorities, the District Court decided that the applicant should now

be detained pending his deportation. His appeal (Beschwerde) from this

decision was dismissed by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of C. on ..

November 1969. The Regional Court noted the statement by the police

authorities that the applicant had gone into hiding and it further

observed that his petition for asylum had been finally rejected and his

efforts to obtain a passport through the Embassy of Afghanistan has so

far remained unsuccessful.

A new order for the applicant's continued detention pending deportation

was made on .. November 1969.

The applicant states that, being a pacifist, he does not wish to be

deported to Egypt where he would be obliged to serve in the army in the

war against Israel or be sentenced to imprisonment. His fiancée lives

in Germany and he would like to stay there or in a neighbouring state.

He also complains that he is not permitted to drive in his own car,

with all his property, to another country and observes that he could

go to Jugoslavia, together with his Jugoslavian fiancée.

THE LAW

Whereas the applicant complains that his imminent expulsion to Egypt

would result in his being obliged to serve in the Egyptian Army in the

war against Israel or being sentenced to imprisonment;

Whereas the Commission observes that, although the right to political

asylum and the right of a person not to be expelled are not as such

included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention,

the Contracting Parties nevertheless have agreed to restrict the free

exercise of their powers under general international law, including the

power to control the entry and exit of all aliens, to the extent and

within the limits of the obligations which they have assumed under the

Convention;

Whereas, therefore, the expulsion of a person may, in certain

exceptional cases, be contrary to the Convention and, in particular,

to Article 3 (Art. 3) thereof (see the Commission's decision of 17

December 1969, on the admissibility of Application No. 4162/69);

Whereas he Commission has accordingly examined whether the applicant's

expulsion to Egypt might constitute inhuman treatment within the

meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention by grossly violating

or suppressing his basic human rights, such as guaranteed by the

Convention (see the Commission's constant jurisprudence, eg.

Applications Nos. 1802/63 - Yearbook of the European Convention of

Human Rights, Vol. 6, page 480 - No. 2396/65 - Baouya v. Federal

Republic of Germany - and No. 3040/67 - Collection of Decisions of the

Commission, Vol. 22, page 138); whereas the Commission does not find

that the facts alleged by the applicant would, if true, amount to such

a violation;

Whereas, in particular, his obligation to perform military service

cannot be considered to violate any of his basic human rights, such as

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas, in this connection, the

Commission has also had regard to Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention;

Whereas it is true that paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 4-2)

provides that no-one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory

labour;

Whereas, however, according to paragraph (3) (Art. 4-3), the term

"forced or compulsory labour" shall not include "any service of a

military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries

where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory

military service";

Whereas it follows that the obligation to perform military service must

in principle be regarded as being compatible with the provisions of the

Convention with the result that the applicant's expulsion to Egypt can

in no way be considered to constitute inhuman treatment within the

meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention on the ground that he

would be obliged to serve in the Egyptian army;

Whereas, further, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,

irrespective of any consideration of his expulsion to a particular

country, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the

applicant's right to leave the Federal Republic of Germany, in

accordance with Article 2 of the Fourth Protocol (P4-2) to the

Convention;

Whereas it follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded

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

Convention.

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255