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

H.A. AND M.A. v. SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 17839/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1244

Document date: January 8, 1992

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

H.A. AND M.A. v. SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 17839/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1244

Document date: January 8, 1992

Cited paragraphs only



Application No. 17839/91

by H.A. and M.A.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 January 1992, the following members being present:

MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

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

SirBasil HALL

MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs.J. LIDDY

MM.L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÃœGER, 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 17 January 1991

by H.A. and M.A. against Switzerland and registered on 25 February

1991 under file No. 17839/91;

Having regard to the information provided by the respondent

Government on 6 November 1991 as to an agreement reached between the

Government and the applicants;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Lebanese nationals born in 1972 and 1973,

respectively.  Before the Commission they are represented by

Mr. T. Tschudi, a lawyer practising in Bern.

In 1990 the applicants travelled from Lebanon over Italy to

Switzerland where on 16 July 1990 they applied for asylum.  In a

decision of 20 July 1990 the Delegate for Refugees ordered the first

applicant to reside at Interlaken in the Canton of Bern and the

second applicant at Veltheim in the Canton of Aargau.  The decision

stated that there were no interests worthy of protection in

determining the applicants' residence in a particular canton.  A

third brother who has also applied for asylum in Switzerland has

been requested to reside in the Canton of Geneva.

On 26 March 1991 the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) declared

inadmissible the applicants' administrative law appeal

(Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) since the decision of the Delegate

for Refugees was not subject to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained that the decision of the Federal

Delegate for Refugees to allocate them to different cantons violated

their right to respect for family life within the meaning of

Article 8 of the Convention.  They submitted that in view of their

young age and their common background they should be enabled to

reside together, and that their financial means only allowed them to

visit each other every eight days.  Under Article 13 of the

Convention the applicants complained that they had no effective

remedy to contest the Delegate's decisions.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 17 January 1991 and

registered on 25 February 1991.

On 2 September 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application.

On 6 November 1991 the Government informed the Commission of

an agreement reached between the applicants and the Government.  The

agreement provides, inter alia, that henceforth both applicants

shall be able to reside at Veltheim in the Canton of Aargau, that

they will receive compensation from the Government for costs and

expenses and as just satisfaction, and that they withdraw their

application to the Commission.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission observes that the applicants are now permitted

to reside together, that they have obtained compensation for costs

and expenses and as just satisfaction, and that they wish to

withdraw their application.

The Commission considers that the factual basis of the

applicants' petition has now been resolved, within the meaning of

Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.  Moreover, the

Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect

for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the

further examination of the case by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in

fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)

© 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