Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 40136/98

by Y. E.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 March 1998, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, Acting President

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

Mr M. de SALVIA, 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 28 January 1998

by Y. E. against Switzerland and registered on 7 March 1998 under file

No. 40136/98;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Sudanese citizen born in 1959, is a software

computer engineer residing in Zürich.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant, who grew up in Egypt, entered Switzerland in 1983.

In 1984 he commenced his studies at the University of Zürich in

economic computer sciences (Wirtschaftsinformatik). He also undertook

studies at the Rapperswil Intercantonal Technical High School where he

obtained a degree in software engineering in 1992.

In 1991 the applicant informed the Swiss Aliens' Police

(Fremdenpolizei) that he would terminate his university studies within

a year, whereupon his residence permit (Aufenthaltsbewilligung) was

prolonged until 1992.

On 25 November 1992 the applicant filed a request for a

prolongation of the residence permit for a further year. This was

refused by the Police Department (Polizeidirektion) of the Government

(Regierungsrat) of the Canton of Zürich on the ground that he had had

sufficient time to complete his studies.

The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Government of Zürich

on 11 August 1993. In its decision the Government noted that the

applicant had come to Switzerland to study. He was now in his 16th

semester and could be expected to have terminated his studies within

this period of time.

On 1 September 1993 the Federal Office for Foreigners (Bundesamt

für Ausländerfragen) ordered the applicant to leave Switzerland.

Meanwhile, the applicant worked in 1992 during the university

holidays for three weeks in the printing offices of a newspaper. As

a result, he suffers from respiratory problems, in particular bronchial

asthma. He requested social security benefits as the illness had

occurred during work, but his request was dismissed, upon appeal, by

the Swiss Accident Insurance Foundation (Schweizerische

Unfallversicherungsanstalt) on 14 April 1994.

The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of 1 September

1993 in which he referred in particular to his respiratory problems.

The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Department of Justice and

Police (Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) on 21 November

1997. In its decision the Department noted in particular that the

applicant suffered from bronchial asthma, particularly in the evenings

when going to bed; when it was cold; and when he walked quickly.

However, according to a medical report the applicant's condition was

stable, though the applicant could only be expected to return to his

home country if he received a particular medication. In this respect,

the decision noted that the company producing the medicaments was

willing to ensure that the applicant would receive the required

supplies in Sudan. The decision also noted that the applicant would

be privileged in his home country in view of his education and his

personal and economic circumstances, and that he was envisaging

founding a computer firm in respect of which he had the necessary

knowledge. The decision finally referred to the applicant's Sudanese

and Egyptian dual nationality which would permit him also to reside in

Egypt where he had previously lived.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, without reference to any particular

Convention provision, of his return to Sudan, stating that he suffers

from bronchial asthma requiring a particular medication. He submits

five medical statements confirming this situation. These statements

consider that the applicant may be treated as an outpatient, though he

can only be expected to return to his home country if appropriate

medication is assured. The applicant submits that he cannot obtain,

or afford to buy, these expensive medicaments in Sudan, and that the

tensions between Sudan and Egypt imply that he would not obtain a

residence permit in Egypt.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of his return to Sudan, claiming that he

suffers from bronchial asthma which requires a particular medication.

The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention which states:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment."

According to the Convention organs' case-law, the right of an

alien to reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by

the Convention. Nevertheless, expulsion may in exceptional

circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where

there is a serious and well-founded fear of treatment contrary to

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the country to which the person

is to be expelled (see Eur. Court HR, Chahal v. United Kingdom judgment

of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, no. 22, p. 1831, paras. 72 ff).

The Commission further recalls that ill-treatment must attain a

minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article

3 (Art. 3). The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of

things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such

as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and,

in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Eur.

Court HR, Ireland v. United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978,

Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162).

In this respect, an issue may arise where there is a real risk

that a person's removal would be contrary to the standards of Article

3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in view of his present medical condition

(see Eur. Court HR, D. v. United Kingdom judgment of 2 May 1997,

Reports 1997-III, No. 37, para. 50).

The Commission has examined the circumstances of the present case

as they have been submitted by the applicant.

According to various medical statements submitted by the

applicant, he suffers from bronchial asthma requiring a particular

medication.

It is true that the applicant submits that, if he were returned

to Sudan, he could not obtain, or afford to buy, these expensive

medicaments.

The Commission notes at the outset that the applicant's illness

is such that he can be treated as an outpatient and does not require

hospitalisation.

Moreover, according to the decision of the Federal Department of

Justice and Police of 21 November 1997, not contradicted by the

applicant, the company producing the medicaments has offered to ensure

that he would receive the required supplies in Sudan. Moreover, in his

home country he would be privileged in view of his education and his

personal and economic circumstances. The Commission notes in

particular that the applicant is envisaging founding a computer firm.

Finally, insofar as the Federal Department considered that the

applicant, who had Sudanese and Egyptian dual nationality, could also

be expected to reside in Egypt, the applicant has not provided any

substantiation for his claim that in view of the tensions between the

two countries he would not obtain a residence permit in Egypt.

As a result, the applicant has failed to show that upon his

departure from Switzerland he would face a real risk of being subjected

to treatment attaining the minimum level of severity so as to fall

within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

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, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M. de SALVIA J.-C. GEUS

Secretary Acting President

to the Commission of the Commission

Menu

Y.E. v. SWITZERLAND

Y.E. v. SWITZERLAND

LEXI