Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20547/92

by D. and Others

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

15 February 1993, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

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 19 August 1992 by

D. and Others against Sweden and registered on 26 August 1992 under

file No. 20547/92;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 17 September 1992 and 27 November 1992 and the

observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 5 October and

17 December 1992 as well as to the submissions of the parties at the

hearing held on 15 February 1993;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are husband, wife and daughter. The husband and

the wife were born in 1965 and their daughter in 1991. They are

presently in hiding in Sweden. Before the Commission they are

represented by Mr. Sten De Geer, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

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

summarised as follows.

Particular circumstances of the case

The first and the second applicant arrived in Sweden on

30 March 1990. On 6 April 1990 they requested asylum, stating that if

they were to be returned to Peru the first applicant would be subjected

to persecution and ill-treatment.

The first applicant is the son of a well-known Peruvian

dissident, Mr. A., who demanded social justice for the farmers in books

and newspaper interviews.

The first applicant's stepmother was imprisoned from 1982 to 1989

and allegedly tortured, suspected of being one of the leaders of a

guerilla faction. She never received a trial.

While unsuccessfully searching for his father the authorities in

1982 arrested the first applicant and kept him in detention for six

months without a trial. The police tried to make him reveal information

pertaining to his father's political activities, allegedly by torturing

him with electric shocks, by keeping his head in cold water, by beating

him with sticks and whips and by forcing him to listen to his step-

mother being tortured. As a result he allegedly still suffers from

insomnia, kidney problems and headache and has scars on his back.

In 1983 the first applicant's father was imprisoned in the prison

of El Sexto, Lima, and accused by the Government of being one of the

leaders of Sendero Luminoso (the Shining Path). Although he was

acquitted of those charges he remained imprisoned in very bad

conditions.

Following complaints by the first applicant to the Red Cross its

representatives demanded that his father's conditions be improved.

Following a riot in the prison in 1984 he was moved to the prison of

Lurigancho. During a peaceful demonstration by prisoners in October

1985 Government troops effected a raid. The first applicant's father

received serious burns and several of his ribs were broken. Following

the authorities' refusal to give him medical care the first applicant

complained to the Government and the Red Cross. The Red Cross was then

allowed to enter the prison and give adequate care. The first

applicant's father publicly accused the Government of preparing a

massacre of political prisoners. In June 1986, following another riot

against prison conditions, over 300 prisoners were shot, including the

first applicant's father.

During a memorial service for the prisoners killed in the riot

the first applicant was arrested and detained for fifteen days and

allegedly tortured, again without receiving a trial. He was accused of

being a member of Sendero Luminoso.

In November 1989 the first applicant was detained for fourteen

days and allegedly tortured during interrogations regarding his

stepmother's activities.

In between his arrests the first applicant received by telephone

death threats from the paramilitary right-wing group Rodrigo Franco,

which the applicants allege is supported by the Government.

Following the first applicant's release from the second arrest

he and his wife moved around in Peru in fear of being persecuted. They

both claim to have been active members of the Committee of Relatives

of Political Prisoners and Disappeared Persons, an organisation

prohibited by the Peruvian authorities. Other members of the Committee

have disappeared. In particular, the first applicant has criticised,

in interviews for newspapers and television companies as well as in

letters to international organisations, the authorities' lack of

respect for the rule of law and the treatment of arrested and

imprisoned persons.

The first and second applicants allegedly managed to obtain

passports and leave Peru after they had bribed certain officials.

On 6 August 1991 the National Board of Immigration (Statens

invandrarverk) refrained from deciding on the asylum requests and

referred the matter to the Government in accordance with Chapter 7,

Section 11 of the 1989 Aliens Act (utlänningslag 1989:529).

On 27 October 1991 a daughter was born to the first and the

second applicant.

On 7 July 1992 the National Board of Immigration also referred

the daughter's case to the Government.

On 8 July 1992 the Government rejected the applicants' request

for asylum. The decision was based on opinions obtained from the

Swedish Embassy in Peru and the Swedish Security Police, both

confidential. The Government stated:

(translation from Swedish)

"In view of the circumstances of the case and, inter alia,

the fact that [the first and the second applicant] left

their country lawfully, the Government consider that they

no longer run a risk of persecution in their home country.

Thus, they are not to be regarded as refugees under

Chapter 3, Section 1, no. 1 of the Aliens Act ...

It appears from the investigation that [the first

applicant] has been working for an organisation which,

according to what is known, has committed heinous offences

(Swe. grova övergrepp) in Peru. Even if [he] himself has

not participated in such activities he has been working for

an organisation whose methods can be regarded as comprising

activities falling within the scope of Article 1 F of the

1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

according to which refugee status is excluded. Thus,

regardless of whether [he] has put forward such reasons

against a return to his home country as mentioned under

Chapter 3, Section 1, no. 3 of the Aliens Act there would

exist particular reasons for not granting him asylum in

Sweden. Nor is there any reason to grant [the second

applicant] asylum under that provision. ...

[The applicants] shall therefore be expelled (avvisas) in

accordance with Chapter 4, Section 1, subsection 1, no. 2

of the Aliens Act and, in accordance with Chapter 4,

Section 14, be prohibited from returning [before 1 August

1994]."

On 8 July 1992 the first applicant's stepmother and her daughter

were granted residence permits in Sweden on humanitarian grounds.

On 23 October 1992 the applicants submitted a psychiatric report

of 15 October 1992 established by Dr. Eliana Arellano, a Spanish-

speaking psychiatrist at the County Administrative Council

(landstinget) of Stockholm. The psychiatric report reads:

(translation from Swedish)

"The report is based on notes taken during [the first

applicant's] visits to our clinic between 26 April 1990 and

3 August 1992 and subsequent conversations, the latest on

9 October 1992.

[The first applicant] is a 27 year-old Peruvian man who

came to Sweden in April 1990 and has since then been

awaiting the grant of asylum. His stepmother ... and half-

sister were granted residence permits in the summer of

1992.

Interviews and notes show that [the first applicant]

belongs to a Peruvian family whose father seems to be a

well-known person active in an opposition movement in Peru.

...

At the age of sixteen [the first applicant] experienced the

dissolution of his family, his father having been forced to

go into hiding. [His stepmother] was subsequently

imprisoned, as the military wanted to find [his father].

During the same period [the first applicant] himself was

tortured ... in order to force him to reveal his father's

whereabouts. He was subsequently transferred to a prison

for minors and was released after six months ... following

which he could see his stepmother only on a few occasions,

either in the prison or at the mental hospital where she

was detained for many years.

In 1986 [his] father died in what the press called a

"massacre" in a prison in Lima.

[The first applicant] has been detained on two further

occasions, in 1987 and November 1989, the last time because

[the military] was trying to find [his stepmother]. This

detention gave him good reasons for fearing for his life.

He therefore requested asylum following a request lodged by

his stepmother. ...

[He] has now been waiting for a residence and work permit

for more than two years. Due to serious anxiety and

depression he has been given a place in a support group for

asylum seekers at this clinic. During the period he has

been a member of the group his state has varied. On several

occasions he has been offered conversations on an

individual basis. On one occasion [his] depression and

anxiety were serious and the risk of his committing suicide

was considered as great.

After the summer of 1992 [he] has only contacted us by

telephone as he has been fearing [an enforcement of the

expulsion order].

In connection with this [he] has reacted with symptoms of

paralysis and great anxiety, concentration problems,

inactivity and passivity. On 9 October 1992 he told me

about his present state and said that he, because of the

pressing situation, has been suffering from insomnia,

despite his previous medication. ...In connection with his

insomnia he has had flashbacks from his imprisonment and

torture at the age of sixteen and [now] strongly fears that

he will be murdered.

[He] cannot at present see any meaning in life, as his only

future, in case the expulsion order is enforced, will be a

certain, horrifying death. This reaction can thus only be

considered a natural one.

The flashbacks from [his] traumatic experiences, which he

used to be able to stand because of medication and the

support group, have now become more outstanding. [He]

suffers from post-traumatic experiences. At present the

suicidal risk is great.

..."

On 17 December 1992 the applicants submitted an opinion by the

Centre for Torture Victims (Centrum for tortyrskadade) concurring with

Dr. Arellano's report and concluding that it seemed extremely unlikely

that the first applicant had not been subjected to torture. The opinion

was based on a substantial number of interviews with the first

applicant as well as an examination of the first applicant's teeth

carried out by a forensic odontologist and an examination by a

dermatologist of the first applicant's skin. According to the latter

opinion it could not be excluded that the first applicant's scars had

been caused by violence.

The applicants deny any connection with Sendero Luminoso.

Relevant domestic law

Under Chapter 2, Section 5, subsection 3 of the Aliens Act a

request for a residence permit lodged by an alien, who is to be refused

entry or expelled by a decision which has acquired legal force, may

only be granted provided the request is based on new circumstances and

the applicant is either entitled to asylum or there are weighty

humanitarian reasons for allowing him to stay in Sweden.

Under Chapter 3, Section 1, an alien may be granted asylum

because he is a refugee (no. 1) or, without being a refugee, if he

wishes not to return to his home country because of the political

situation there and provided he can put forward weighty reasons in

support of his wish (no. 3).

The term "refugee" refers to an alien who is staying outside the

country of which he is a citizen because he feels a well-founded fear

of being persecuted in that country, having regard to his race,

nationality, belonging to a special group in society or his religious

or political convicitons, and who cannot or does not wish to avail

himself of his home country's protection (Chapter 3, Section 2).

An alien as referred to in Chapter 3, Section 1 is entitled to

asylum. Asylum may, however, be refused inter alia if, in the case of

an alien falling under Chapter 3, Section 1, no. 3, there are special

grounds for not granting asylum (Chapter 3, Section 4).

An alien may be refused entry into Sweden if he lacks a visa,

residence permit or other permit required for entry, residence or

employment in Sweden (Chapter 4, Section 1, no. 2).

When considering whether to refuse an alien entry or to expel him

it must be examined whether he, pursuant to Chapter 8, Sections 1-4,

can be returned to a particular country or whether there are other

special obstacles to the enforcement of such a decision (Chapter 4,

Section 12).

A refusal of entry issued by the National Board of Immigration

may be combined with a prohibition on return for a specific period of

time (Chapter 4, Section 14). In refusing entry the Government, too,

may issue a prohibition on return for a specific period of time

(Chapter 7, Section 5, subsection 2).

Under Chapter 7, Section 10 the National Board of Immigration may

review its decision, if new circumstances have emerged or for any other

reason, provided it would not affect the alien negatively or be

irrelevant to him. A review may take place even if an appeal has been

lodged against the Board's decision. If the Board has handed over the

file to the Government it may only review its decision, provided its

opinion is requested by the Government.

The National Board of Immigration may, for special reasons, refer

a request for asylum to the Government together with its opinion in the

matter (Chapter 7, Section 11).

An alien who has been refused entry or who is to be expelled may

never be conveyed to a country where there is firm reason to believe

that he would be in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal

punishment or torture, nor to a country where he is not protected from

being sent to a country where he would be in such danger (Chapter 8,

Section 1).

When a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order is put into effect,

the alien may not be sent to a country where he would risk being

persecuted, nor to a country where he would not be protected from being

sent on to a country where he would risk being persecuted (Chapter 8,

Section 2, subsection 1). An alien may, however, be sent to a country

as referred to in subsection 1 if he cannot be sent to any other

country and if he has shown, by committing a particular offence, that

public order and safety would be seriously endangered by his being

allowed to remain in Sweden. This does not apply if the persecution

threatening him in the other country implies danger to his life or is

otherwise of a particularly grave nature. Similarly, the alien may be

sent to a country referred to in subsection 1 if he has engaged in

activities endangering the national security of Sweden and if there is

reason to suppose that he would continue to engage in such activities

in Sweden and he cannot be sent to any other country (subsection 2).

If the enforcement is not subject to any obstacles under, inter

alia, Chapter 8, Sections 1 and 2, an alien who has been refused entry

or who is to be expelled is to be sent to his country of origin or, if

possible, to the country from which he came to Sweden. If the decision

cannot be put into effect in the manner indicated in subsection 1 or

there are other special grounds for doing so, the alien may be sent to

some other country instead (Chapter 8, Section 5).

When considering a request for a residence permit lodged by an

alien to be expelled according to a decision which has acquired legal

force, the National Board of Immigration (and in certain cases also the

Government) may stay execution of that decision. For particular reasons

the Board may also otherwise stay execution (Chapter 8, Section 10).

If the enforcing authority finds that enforcement cannot be

carried out or that further information is needed, the authority is to

notify the National Board of Immigration accordingly. In such a case,

the Board may decide on the question of enforcement or take such other

measures as are necessary (Chapter 8, Section 13).

Under the 1991 Ordinance on Residence Permits in Certain Cases

(förordning 1991:1999 om uppehållstillstånd i vissa utlänningsärenden)

an alien who has been staying in Sweden for more than eighteen months

on 1 January 1992 may be granted a residence permit unless there are

special reasons for granting such a permit. The Ordinance entered into

force on 1 February 1992.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain that, if they were to be returned to

Peru, the first applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment contrary

to Article 3 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 19 August 1992 and registered

on 26 August 1992.

On 26 August 1992 the President of the Commission decided,

pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was

desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the

proceedings not to return the applicants to Peru until the Commission

had had an opportunity to examine the application.

The President further decided, pursuant to Rule 34 para. 3 and

Rule 48 para. 2(b), to bring the application to the notice of the

respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations

on its admissibility and merits.

On 11 September 1992 the Commission decided to prolong the

indication under Rule 36 until 23 October 1992.

The Government's observations were submitted on 17 September 1992

and the applicants' observations in reply on 5 October 1992.

On 23 October 1992 the Commission decided to prolong its

indication under Rule 36 until 11 December 1992 and invited the

Government to submit supplementary observations. It further granted the

applicants legal aid.

Supplementary observations were submitted by the Government on

27 November 1992.

On 11 December 1992 the Commission decided to prolong its

indication under Rule 36 until 16 January 1993.

On 17 December 1992 the applicants submitted their comments on

the Government's supplementary observations.

On 15 January 1993 the Commission decided to hold an oral hearing

on the admissibility and merits of the application. It further

prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until 19 February 1993.

At the hearing, which was held on 15 February 1993, the parties

were represented as follows:

The Government

Mr. Carl-Henrik Ehrenkrona Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry

for Foreign Affairs, agent

Mr. Erik Lempert Permanent Under-Secretary, Ministry

of Culture and Immigration, adviser

Mrs. Karin Nyman-Metcalf First Secretary, Ministry of Culture

and Immigration, adviser

The applicants

Mr. Sten De Geer Counsel

Mr. Ingemar Strandberg Assistant counsel

THE LAW

The applicants complain that, if they are expelled to Peru, the

first applicant will be subjected to ill-treatment contrary to

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which reads:

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

degrading treatment or punishment."

The Government point out that the psychiatric report of 15

October 1992 was given after the issuing of the expulsion order. It was

not invoked in the applicants' request for asylum. Under Chapter 2,

Section 5 of the Aliens Act the applicants could lodge a further

request for asylum or a residence permit referring to new

circumstances. As no further request has been lodged the applicants

have, contrary to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, not exhausted

domestic remedies. The Government further refer to Chapter 7, Section

10 as well as Chapter 8, Section 10 of the Aliens Act.

The Government further submit that the application is, in any

case, manifestly ill-founded, as there are no substantial grounds for

fearing that the first applicant would be subjected to torture or other

forms of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention. Although he claims to have been tortured during his

detention this allegation has not been substantiated by means of

medical certificates or otherwise. Moreover, on all three occasions he

was released without any action being taken against him by the

authorities.

According to the information available to the Government the

first applicant is neither wanted by the Peruvian police as suspected

of having committed criminal offences nor were any attempts made to

prevent him from leaving Peru. The main purpose of his arrests appears

to have been to interrogate him in respect of his father's activities

in Sendero Luminoso as well as his stepmother's contacts with that

organisation. As his father was killed in 1986 and his stepmother has

been granted a residence permit in Sweden it is unlikely that the

Peruvian police would still have an interest in arresting and

interrogating the first applicant in order to obtain information about

them.

According to information obtained by the Swedish Embassy in Lima

there have been no indications of treatment contrary to Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention in the criminal proceedings instituted in

1992 against the leader of Sendero Luminoso, Mr. Abigael Guzmán, and

the other persons arrested together with him. The general opinion among

persons interested in human rights appears to be that the special

police force responsible for arresting Sendero Luminoso activists

suspected of having committed criminal offences (Dirección Nacional

contra el Terrorismo) is anxious to avoid being accused of having ill-

treated those persons. The Government further refer to the Peruvian Act

on Repeneters (Ley de Arrepentimiento) which entered into force in May

1992 and according to which suspected Sendero Luminoso terrorists who

turn themselves in to the Peruvian authorities may get a mitigated

sentence and identity protection assistance upon release from prison.

The Government emphasise that their examination of a request for

asylum takes into account the same factors as are relevant for the

application of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. Accordingly, the

present case has been carefully considered. In addition, having

received, in 1991-1992, a total number of approximately 1.300 asylum

requests lodged by Peruvians, the Swedish authorities have gained a

good knowledge of the situation prevailing in Peru. Out of 314 cases

examined in 1992 residence permits were granted in 216 cases, many on

humanitarian grounds.

The Government further submit that the applicants may leave

Sweden whenever they wish, thereby avoiding their expulsion to Peru.

The Government finally emphasise that out of a total of nineteen

decisions made on 8 July 1992 upon requests for asylum lodged by

Peruvian citizens only one resulted in a permit to stay in Sweden,

namely the case of the first applicant's stepmother and her daughter.

These were, however, granted residence permits for humanitarian

reasons. All requests were considered individually. Some Peruvians

whose requests were rejected have already returned to Peru voluntarily.

No arrests of those persons have been reported.

The applicants submit that the psychiatric report is being

invoked not in order to show that humanitarian reasons prevent their

expulsion to Peru but as further evidence showing that the first

applicant runs a substantial risk of ill-treatment should the

applicants be returned to that country. Domestic remedies have, thus,

been exhausted. Considering domestic remedies as exhausted only upon

enforcement of the expulsion order would in the applicants' view render

the protection under the Convention ineffective.

The applicants refute the Government's allegation that the first

applicant and the Committee of Relatives of Political Prisoners and

Disappeared Persons have contacts with Sendero Luminoso. They further

contend that the fact that the first applicant was released from

detention on three occasions cannot be construed as an indication that

their return would now be safe, nor does the fact that the first and

the second applicant managed to leave Peru mean that it would be safe

for the applicants to return. In particular, the first applicant's

advocacy of humane treatment of political prisoners and the rule of law

has put him in a dangerous position. This is confirmed by the strong

dissatisfaction expressed in public by the Peruvian Prime Minister as

regards the decision to stay execution of the order refusing the

applicants and other Peruvian asylum seekers entry into Sweden.

The applicants refer to reports by Amnesty International of May

and September 1992 as well as statements by that organisation

criticising the human rights situation in Peru. In particular, Amnesty

International has criticised the criminal proceedings brought against

Mr. Guzmán which it considers fall short of international human rights

standards. They further refer to a report of August 1992 by Americas

Watch as well as to media information that even lawyers defending

suspected Sendero Luminoso terrorists have been detained.

The applicants finally maintain that the human rights situation

in Peru has deteriorated since President Fujimori's "coup d'état" in

April 1992, persons even more frequently being reported "disappeared"

or killed. The deterioration can also be seen in the relaxation of the

legal requirements for being considered a terrorist and in the

introduction of the vaguely defined offence "apology of terrorism".

The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to

control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to

political asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its

Protocols (Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of

30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102).

However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an asylum seeker may

give rise to an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and

hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention,

where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person

concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which

he is to be expelled (ibid., para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-

treatment is not in itself sufficient (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).

In the case at issue the Government have emphasised the first

applicant's connection with Sendero Luminoso as a reason for excluding

eligibility for de facto asylum. The applicants have denied any such

connection, but maintained that due to the first and second applicants'

activities in Peru the Peruvian authorities have accused them of having

contacts with that organisation.

The Commission considers, however, that while the applicants'

allegation that the first applicant has previously been subjected to

treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) has found some support in

certain evidence submitted to the Commission, this in itself does not

suffice to conclude that he would now face a real risk of again being

subjected to such treatment should the applicants be returned to Peru.

In particular, no evidence such as a warrant of arrest or a summons to

appear before authorities in Peru has been submitted by the applicants.

Nor does it appear from the material obtained that the applicants would

be of any special interest to the Peruvian authorities. Thus, the

allegation that at least the first applicant is wanted by the Peruvian

authorities has remained unsubstantiated. In addition, the evidence

before the Commission concerning the applicants' background and the

general situation in Peru does not establish that their personal

situation is any worse than that of those Peruvians who have returned

voluntarily to their home country following the Government's refusal

of asylum (cf. ibid., p. 37, para. 111).

The Commission also attaches importance to the fact that the

Swedish authorities appear to have gained a considerable experience in

evaluating claims of the present nature by virtue of the large number

of Peruvian asylum seekers in Sweden. It notes that residence permits

have in fact been granted in numerous cases. Moreover, it should be

noted that the authorities are obliged to consider basically the same

factors as are relevant to the Convention organs' assessment under

Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. The Government's decision of 8

July 1992 was furthermore made after careful examination of the

applicants' case (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Cruz Varas and Others judgment

of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, para. 81).

The Commission in particular observes that Chapter 8, Section 1

of the Aliens Act imposes an absolute obligation on the enforcing

authority in Sweden to refrain from expelling an alien, should the

evolution of the human rights situation in the receiving country

constitute firm reason to believe that he would be in danger of being

subjected to capital or corporal punishment or torture in that country.

In these circumstances the Commission cannot find that

substantiated grounds have been established for believing that the

applicants would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to

treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention on their

return to Peru.

The question could be raised whether, having regard to the

psychiatric report by Dr. Arellano of 23 October 1992, the first

applicant's expulsion would involve such a trauma that this as such

could amount to a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) (cf. supra, Cruz

Varas judgment, p. 31, paras. 83-84).

The Commission notes, however, that under Swedish law a further

request for asylum or a residence permit may be lodged with reference

to new circumstances. The applicants have admitted that neither the

psychiatric report of 15 October 1992 nor the report by the Swedish

Centre for Torture Victims of December 1992 has yet been invoked in

support of such a request. Thus, this possibility is still open to

them.

In these circumstances the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)

Menu

D. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

D. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

LEXI