AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                       Application No. 20470/92

                                by M.K.

                            against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

10 September 1992, the following members being present:

           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                 S. TRECHSEL

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

                 H. DANELIUS

           Sir   Basil HALL

           MM.   F. MARTINEZ

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 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 28 May 1992 by

M.K. against Sweden and registered on 11 August 1992 under file No.

20470/92;

      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 is a Russian citizen of Jewish origin born on

12 December 1959. She is presently staying at an unknown address in

Sweden.

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

summarised as follows.

      The applicant left her home in Leningrad on 26 August 1989 for

a holiday trip to Sweden to which country she had been invited by her

cousin who has resided there for the last two years. She arrived in

Sweden on 27 August 1989 by boat from Helsinki on a tourist visa valid

for 69 days.

      On 11 October 1989 she applied for asylum, refugee status, a

residence permit, travel documents, and an aliens passport. At the

ensuing police interrogation she stated, inter alia, the following. She

had never been engaged in any political activities. She was divorced

1 1/2 years ago and the father had received the custody of their child.

She did not want to go back to Russia as she had been harassed and

battered there by the economic police after she had publicly denounced

certain economic crimes which took place at her workplace. If she were

sent to Russia she would risk encountering serious problems upon her

return.

      On 22 May 1990 she was heard again by the police. In addition to

the information already supplied, the applicant stated, inter alia, the

following. No member of her family had been convicted for political

crimes. An important reason for her wish to be allowed to stay in

Sweden was that this would enable her, through the Red Cross, to be

reunited with her child. When her cousin had visited Russia after the

applicant's arrival in Sweden she had been summoned by the KGB and

asked questions about the applicant and her whereabouts.

      On 6 September 1990 the applicant's counsel submitted further

observations to the Government reiterating the substance of her earlier

submissions and adding, inter alia, the following details. One of the

main reasons why she had not received the custody of her child was that

she was seen as an unreliable person because she had a cousin who had

emigrated to Sweden. She was very close to this cousin as they had been

brought up together after the applicant's mother died when the

applicant was 12 years old. Her father was an alcoholic and died in

1978. Furthermore, the applicant's Jewish origin had caused her

problems at her workplace. After she had been beaten up by the economic

police she decided to use the visa she had received in May to visit her

cousin as a means of fleeing to Sweden. She left the country without

permission and without giving proper notice to her employer.

      Her application for asylum was rejected by the National

Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) on 2 April 1991 and the Board

decided that the applicant should be expelled (avvisad) from Sweden and

prohibited from returning to the country before 1 May 1993 without

special permission from the Board. In its decision the Board stated,

inter alia, the following:

      "The Board has no reason to question the [applicant's]

      submissions with regard to the harassment and battery she claims

      to have suffered in her home country. What has been put forward

      in support of her application for asylum can, however, not be

      considered sufficient to make [the applicant] a refugee within

      the meaning of Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Aliens Act

      (utlänningslagen) or of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating

      to the status of refugees. Neither are the circumstances

      relied on such as are envisaged in Chapter 3, Section 1,

      No.  3 of the Aliens Act [de facto refugee].

      Her application for asylum must accordingly be rejected. No

      other ground for granting a residence permit exists. [The

      applicant] shall accordingly be expelled and the decision

      be combined with a prohibition to re-enter the country.

      In accordance with the above conclusion, the Board also

      rejects her requests for refugee status, travel documents

      and an aliens passport."

      The applicant appealed to the Government. On 4 July 1991 her

counsel submitted, inter alia, the following additional information.

The applicant's cousin had become seriously mentally ill after her

fiancé had attempted to murder her in Russia. She received treatment

for her problems in Sweden. She had no close relative other than the

applicant and depended on the applicant's presence for her recovery.

The applicant expressed great fears as to the fate of her cousin if she

was not allowed to stay and help her. The applicant had no close

relative in Russia and feared very much what would happen to her if she

was sent back. She did not think that she would ever be allowed to

leave the country.

      In the course of the autumn 1991 the applicant engaged in a

relationship with a Polish man who had been living in Sweden for 20

years with a permanent residence permit.

      The Government rejected the appeal on 7 November 1991. It stated

in its decision that it shared the opinion expressed by the Board and

what had come to light in the proceedings before it could not lead to

any change in the decision appealed against.

      However, when the applicant was informed of the decision on 8

November 1991, she was by mistake told that the Government had granted

her request, to be informed a few hours later that this information was

incorrect. The same evening she took an overdose of sleeping pills,

Rohypnol. Her boyfriend found her and took her to hospital where her

life was saved. She was sent to a closed psychiatric ward for

observation, but as she appeared capable of taking care of herself and

had abandoned her suicidal thoughts she was released on

10 November 1991.

      A medical certificate dated 28 November 1991 and signed by Dr L.,

a physician and psychotherapist, stated that the applicant was

suffering from a reactive depression and was unable to control her

impulses. It concluded that, as she had recently required closed

psychiatric treatment following a suicide attempt, there was a risk of

suicide in case of new stress, for example in the event of execution

of the expulsion order.

      On 4 December 1991 the applicant submitted a new request for

residence and work permits. She also asked for a stay in the execution

of the expulsion order. She maintained that there were strong

humanitarian grounds for granting her request. She invoked the medical

files established after her suicide attempt and the medical certificate

of 28 November 1991 and stated that she was still in a suicidal state

of mind. In addition, she invoked the fact that she had been living

together with her Polish boyfriend for four months and that she had

been staying in Sweden for 25 months.

      By decision of 9 December 1991, the Board rejected all the

applicant's requests. The Board's decision stated summarily that the

humanitarian reasons invoked were not sufficiently strong for the

granting of a resident permit, nor were her connections with Sweden.

The Board's decision was not subject to any appeal.

      On 8 January 1992 the applicant married her Polish boyfriend.

      A new medical certificate issued by Dr. L. on 2 March 1992

described the applicant's mental situation as worse than that existing

at the time of the previous certificate. It concluded that further

stress in the form of execution of the expulsion decision could lead

to suicide.

      On 4 March 1992 the applicant submitted to the Board a new

request for residence and work permits, for a cancellation of the

expulsion order and for a stay in the execution of this order. In this

request the applicant stated the following.

      Everything she had submitted so far was true but still not her

complete story. In fact, in 1986 she had started to work for the KGB

to help them to get information from foreigners, in particular Asians,

by becoming the foreigners' friend and, if need be, by seducing them.

However, after some time she had become fed up with her work and the

strict scrutiny she was subjected to by the KGB. The KGB allowed her

to stop and found her another place of work - in fact the one where she

later encountered the serious problems she had already described to the

police. The organisation also offered to find her a suitable husband.

However, she had not been able to stand the situation and had contacted

her cousin in Sweden in order to have her help to obtain a visa to

Sweden. She had promised the KGB to stay in Sweden only for two months.

The KGB had allowed her to leave as they deemed that she had sufficient

ties with the Soviet Union through her son and her employment. She had

not dared to tell the Swedish authorities about her involvment with the

KGB for fear that they should distrust her and believe that she planned

to act for the KGB also in Sweden. She had reported to the consulate

of the Soviet Union upon her arrival in Sweden but had not had any

further contacts with the Soviet authorities. Since her arrival, she

had, however, received three convocations to interrogations in

Leningrad. The first arrived in January 1991 and the last, which was

annexed in original, stated that she was to be heard on 4 November

1991. She was absolutely sure that if she returned to Russia, she would

never be allowed to leave the country again. In addition, she did not

know what the KGB would do to her upon her return. She referred to

another woman who had worked in the same way as she had done but who

had fallen in love with a foreigner and who had planned to leave the

country with him. Shortly, before this woman was to leave the country

she was murdered, probably by the KGB.

      The applicant also invoked her marriage with her Polish boyfriend

and stated that she had had a very good influence on him: earlier he

had been in very bad company but, after meeting her, he had broken with

all his earlier friends. If she were expelled to Russia there would be

a great risk that they would never be able to reunite in Sweden.

      Finally, she also invoked her mental condition as described by

Dr. L. in his certificate of 2 March 1992, and her plans to commit

suicide if expelled.

      On 10 March 1992 the Board rejected the application. It stated

summarily that neither her work as "bait" for the KGB, nor her

marriage, nor her mental condition were circumstances of a character

as to warrant the granting of asylum or special reasons of a

humanitarian character warranting the granting of a residence permit.

The Board's decision was not subject to appeal.

      On 24 March 1992 the applicant reiterated her request of

4 March 1992. She invoked the increased importance attached to

connections with Sweden in new regulations issued by the Government on

19 December 1991 and entered into force on 1 January 1992. According

to these regulations a residence permit could, unless there were

special reasons to the contrary, be granted an alien who had, by 1

January 1992, been in Sweden for at least 18 months after an

application for such a permit, but who had not, within that time, had

the application finally decided. The applicant pointed to the fact that

she had been in Sweden for almost 2 1/2 years and had applied for

asylum already on 11 November 1989, and to the strengthening of her

connections with the country which resulted from her marriage with her

Polish boyfriend. She also reiterated her fears of persecution in

Russia on account of her previous work for the KGB and her bad mental

state and the risk of sucidie.

      By decision of 27 March 1992, the Board rejected the application.

The reasons for the Board's decision were stated as follows:

      "[The applicant] mainly invokes the length of her stay in Sweden.

      The Board starts by noting that there are no grounds for granting

      asylum.

      The Board also finds that [the applicant] has been in Sweden for

      a long time.  The length of the period an alien has stayed in

      Sweden may, according to practice, be an essential element in

      determining whether there are especially strong reasons of a

      humanitarian character to grant a residence permit. However, the

      mere fact that an alien may have been in Sweden for a long time

      should not lead to a granting of his/her application for such a

      permit; certain further circumstances have also to be present in

      order for such special reasons to exist. Considering all the

      elements of the case, the Board cannot find that sufficiently

      strong reasons have been shown for changing the decision

      challenged - which has gained legal force - and granting a

      residence permit."

      The Board's decision was not subject to any appeal.

      On 2 April 1992 the applicant appealed to the Government for

"mercy" and for a stay in the execution of her expulsion. In  her

application she reiterated in substance the arguments made in her

above-mentioned application of 24 March 1992. She also stated that she

would obtain a statement from the Swedish security police regarding the

risks faced by former KGB collaborators in Russia.

      By decision of 29 April the Government refused to examine the

application.

      On 13 May 1992 the security police sent a letter to the

applicant's lawyer informing the latter, inter alia, that they did not

know with any certainty what fate awaited a former KGB agent who was

returned to Russia after having fled abroad.

      On 14 May 1992 the applicant requested the Board to order a stay

of execution of the expulsion decision, to annul this decision and to

grant her residence and work permits. She invoked all her earlier

submissions and emphasised the security police's statement that they

could not provide any information on what would happen to a former KGB

agent who was returned to Russia after having fled abroad. She

maintained that the insecurity as to her fate if returned to Russia was

so great that she should, having regard also to her connections with

Sweden, be allowed to stay in the country.

      On 15 May 1992 the Board rejected the new application as it found

that it was in all important respects identical to her earlier

requests, even taking into account the information submitted by the

security police. The Board's decision was not subject to any appeal.

      On 20 May 1992 the applicant requested the Government to

reconsider the case, reiterating her fears of reprisals upon her return

to Russia.

      According to a medical certificate dated 6 August 1992 and signed

by Mr. P, a psychologist at the Southern Hospital in Stockholm

(Södersjukhuset), the applicant's husband suffers from serious

reactions of panic and anguish which, after he had suffered a heart

attack in 1986, have resulted in his admittance to the intensive care

unit of the heart department of the hospital. The certificate adds that

his mental condition is still very unstable and that the only points

of light in his condition are his contacts with his son and his new

wife.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant requests the Commission to help her to be allowed

to stay in Sweden. She does not invoke any provision of the Convention

but refers to her fears of reprisals if returned to Russia and her

family connections in Sweden.

THE LAW

      The Commission recalls that no right to asylum or freedom from

expulsion are as such guaranteed by the Convention. The expulsion of

a person may nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, raise

issues under the Convention, in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3)

where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person

concerned faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she

is to be returned (see, inter alia, Eur. Court H.R. Vilvarajah and

Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A No. 215, p. 34, para. 103)

and under Article 8 (Art. 8) to the extent that the expulsion excludes

the person concerned from a country in which his or her close relatives

reside (see, inter alia, No. 12122/86, Dec. 16.10.86, D.R. 50 p. 268,

at p. 272).

      As regards the questions raised under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention, the Commission observes that a mere possibility of ill-

treatment in the country to which the person concerned is to be sent

is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of this provision

(see the above-mentioned Vilvarajah judgment, p. 37, para. 111). In the

light of this judgment and considering the circumstances of the present

case, the Commission does not find that the applicant has shown

substantial grounds for believing that she would be exposed to a

serious risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3

(Art. 3) if returned to Russia.

      As regards questions raised under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant is being expelled

as she does not have a valid residence permit and has not been found

to fulfil the legal conditions for the granting of one or for the

granting of political asylum. The Commission also notes that the family

connections invoked by the applicant consist of her relations with her

cousin and her husband.

      The Commission notes with regard to her family relations that

these are of a rather weak nature. Her cousin and herself are now grown

up persons and even if their family ties may have been very strong at

an earlier stage as a result of the circumstances obtaining after the

death of the applicant's mother, there is today a question of whether

these go beyond normal emotional ties (cf. No. 10375/83, Dec. 10.12.84,

D.R. 40 p. 196). The applicant established a relationship with her

husband only in the autumn of 1991 when she was already under the

expulsion order at issue. When she married him on 8 January 1992 she

was still under the expulsion order and her chances of being allowed

to stay in Sweden had not improved in the meantime. They have no

children.

       The Commission has not found it necessary to determine whether

these relationships fall under the protection afforded by Article 8

(Art. 8) as a possible interference would in any case be justified

under the Article's second paragraph (cf. above-mentioned No. 12122/86,

D.R. 50  p. 272).

      There is in the present case nothing to indicate that any

potential interference with the applicant's family life would not be

in accordance with the law within the meaning of the second paragraph

of Article 8 (Art. 8). When considering whether it was necessary in a

democratic society to decide to expel her and, subsequently, to refuse

to repeal this decision and to grant a residence permit, the Commission

must weigh the seriousness of the potential interference with the

applicant's family life against the considerations relating to the

proper enforcement of immigration controls. In this connection the

Commission recalls that the applicant is only prohibited from returning

to Sweden until 1 May 1993 and that she may, even before this date,

request a special permit to visit her husband and her cousin in Sweden.

      In addition, the applicant has not provided any information to

the effect that it would be impossible for her to reunite with either

of them in Russia. The Commission would finally emphasize the close

connection between the policy of immigration control and important

considerations pertaining to public order. In the circumstances of the

present case the Commission accordingly finds that any potential

interference with the applicant's family life would be justified under

the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8).

      It follows that 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            President of the Commission

       (H.C. Krüger)                         (C.A. Nørgaard)