Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32156/96

by Mrs AG and Mr K

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

23 January 1997, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 2 July 1996 by

Mrs AG and Mr K against Sweden and registered on 5 July 1996 under file

No. 32156/96;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 11 November 1996 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicants on 25 November 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant (Mrs AG) is an Iranian citizen, born in 1970.

The second applicant (Mr K; her husband) is an Iranian and Swedish

citizen, born in 1964. Both applicants are resident at Kista in Sweden.

They are represented by Mr. Kjell Jönsson, a lawyer in Stockholm.

Mrs AG arrived in Sweden on 27 May 1993, having been granted a

residence permit until 8 September 1993 due to her family connection

to her then husband Mr M, another Iranian apparently holding a

permanent residence permit in Sweden. On 19 July 1993 she requested

asylum, alternatively a residence permit on humanitarian grounds,

stating that her and M's relationship had ceased to exist. She claimed

to be a sympathiser of the banned Mojaheddin opposition movement in

Iran. In 1990 she had also been arrested and detained for two months

after her brothers had left Iran.

In June 1994 Mrs AG met Mr K, a Swedish citizen since 1993. He

had previously been recognised as a quota refugee by the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees ("the UNHCR") and by Sweden, apparently

on account of having been active in the military faction of the

Mojaheddin and having been tortured in Iran.

On 13 July 1994 the National Immigration Board (Statens

invandrarverk) rejected Mrs AG's request for asylum or a residence

permit. It noted discrepancies in the accounts of her and one of her

brother's political activities in Iran as well as in their accounts of

the Iranian authorities' interest in the two. The Board also noted that

Mrs AG had possessed a valid Iranian passport on arrival in Sweden. It

therefore found that it had not been shown that she would be wanted or

otherwise be of any particular interest to the Iranian regime. The

alleged risk of persecution had therefore been exaggerated.

In August 1994 Mrs AG appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board

(Utlänningsnämnden), requesting that her case be sent back to the

National Immigration Board for new consideration. She referred, inter

alia, to the fact that its decision had not been made by those of its

officials who had attended its oral hearing. Nor had the Board

indicated in what respect her submissions had been contradictory. It

had also based itself on a presentation of facts which was clearly not

in line with the information recorded in writing as a result of the

asylum interviews.

In October 1994 the applicants started a relationship. In

March 1995 they moved together and on 10 May 1995 they married.

On 19 May 1995 Mrs AG supplemented her appeal to the Aliens

Appeals Board, principally referring to her marriage to Mr K. Her

having met Mr K had ended her relationship with Mr M. She also referred

to her family connection to her siblings in Sweden. Finally, she

invoked a report of 23 March 1995 by an expert in psychiatry concluding

that she was suffering from a depressive neurosis related to the

circumstances in Iran which had forced her into exile.

On 29 February 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected Mrs AG's

appeal. It noted that, in 1990, her older brother in Sweden had

requested that his younger siblings in Iran be granted residence

permits in Sweden, as he had become the head of the family after

their father's death. This request had been rejected in December 1990.

In 1992 Mrs AG had requested and been granted a short-term residence

permit on account of her connection to her then husband Mr M.

No allegations of ill-treatment in Iran had been made to the Swedish

authorities until their relationship had ended. The Board concluded

that Mrs AG's allegations in support of her asylum request were not

credible.

The Board nevertheless found it evident that Mrs AG would have

been granted a temporary residence permit in Sweden in view of her

relationship with Mr K, had she requested such a permit from abroad.

A precondition for the issuing of such a permit was normally that the

alien could present a valid passport. Mrs AG's Iranian passport had

ceased to be valid on 12 October 1995. Before deciding whether or not

to grant her a residence permit the Board therefore invited her to

present a valid Iranian passport within two months.

In submissions of 7 March 1996 Mrs AG stated that mainly because

of her mental state she would not dare to present herself at the

Iranian Embassy in order to request a new passport. It was known that

Iranians could be heavily pressured to cooperate with the regime. The

Swedish Security Police (Säkerhetspolisen) had confirmed that threats

against relatives in Iran were common as well as refugee espionage.

Mrs AG therefore wanted to avoid having to answer questions concerning

herself and Mr K. She requested that the Board would exceptionally not

require her to present a valid passport and instead consider granting

her an alien's passport.

On 27 March 1996 the Board stated that it would, for the time

being, not grant Mrs AG an exception to the passport requirement.

In submissions of 26 and 29 April 1996 Mrs AG stated that she had

been unable to overcome her fear of presenting herself at the Iranian

Embassy and that this requirement of the Board would, if upheld,

subject her to inhuman treatment. The applicants had tried to find out

about the passport procedure at the Embassy. Apparently Mrs AG would

have to request a new passport. Her husband would have to consent to

such a request. Complications could arise because of Mrs AG's previous

marriage to Mr M. Her old passport would show that she had been staying

in Sweden for a long time without a residence permit. The Embassy would

therefore probably realise that she had been requesting asylum. She

also invoked a statement by the Swedish Office of the UNHCR dated

12 April 1996, according to which an Iranian runs an inherent risk of

being persecuted in Iran solely on the basis of his or her family

connection to a recognised refugee from Iran.

On 28 June 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board found no reason to

depart from the requirement that Mrs AG should present a valid Iranian

passport. The conditions for granting her a Swedish alien's passport

had thus not been met.

On 17 July 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected Mrs AG's

further request for a residence permit.

In response to a yet further request the Aliens Appeals Board,

on 8 November 1996, quashed the expulsion order concerning Mrs AG,

granted her refugee status and issued her with a permanent residence

permit in Sweden.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained that, if expelled to Iran, Mrs AG would

be exposed to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment on account of

her being Mr K's wife. Having been recognised as a refugee, Mr K was

still being considered an enemy of the Iranian regime despite his

Swedish citizenship. It was therefore not possible for him to return

to Iran with Mrs AG or he would face persecution or death. Finally, the

applicants complained about the lack of a court or other effective

remedy against the Aliens Appeals Board's decision of 28 June 1996.

They invoked Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 2 July 1996 and registered on

5 July 1996.

On 5 July 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

applicants' complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention to the

respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

11 November 1996, after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicants replied on 25 November 1996.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The applicants principally complained that, if expelled to Iran,

Mrs AG would be exposed to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment

on account of her being Mr K's wife. They invoked Articles 3, 6, 8 and

13 of the Convention.

In their observations of 11 November 1996 the respondent

Government referred to the Aliens Appeals Board's decision of

8 November 1996. In the light of that decision the application could,

in the Government's opinion, be struck off the Commission's list of

cases.

In their observations of 25 November 1996 the applicants stated

their willingness to withdraw their application.

The Commission notes that the first applicant has now been

granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden. In these circumstances

it considers that the Convention issue underlying the application

has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention. Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general

character affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the

Convention, which require the further examination of the application

by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

Menu

MRS. AG AND MR. K. v. SWEDEN

MRS. AG AND MR. K. v. SWEDEN

LEXI