Search
document

Document text Analytics

T. and T. v. SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 16766/90 • ECHR ID: 001-712

Document date: July 13, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

T. and T. v. SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 16766/90 • ECHR ID: 001-712

Document date: July 13, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16766/90

by P.T. and J.T.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 13 July 1990, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 15 June 1990

by P.T. and J.T. against Switzerland and registered on 21 June 1990

under file No. 16766/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts submitted by the applicants may be summarised as

follows.

The applicants, German citizens born in 1940 and 1957,

respectively, reside at Meggen in Switzerland. The first applicant is

a commercial artist (Graphiker), the second an economist and lawyer.

The applicants have two children born in 1984 and 1987, respectively.

The first applicant lived in the German Democratic Republic

until 1982. The applicants married in 1982 and then lived in

Czechoslovakia from 1983 until 1986. The first applicant moved to the

Federal Republic of Germany in 1986, the second applicant together

with their first child in 1987.

In January 1990 the applicants moved to Switzerland. On

16 April 1990 they applied for asylum, claiming that in the Federal

Republic of Germany they had not found employment; as a result,

their children, who are apparently ill, could not be afforded adequate

care.

On 27 April 1990 the Delegate for Refugees (Delegierter für

das Flüchtlingswesen) dismissed the request and ordered the

applicants' expulsion.

On 13 June 1990 the Federal Department of Justice and Police

(Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) dismissed their

appeal (Beschwerde) and ordered them immediately to leave Switzerland.

In its decision the Department found that economic or professional

difficulties did not suffice for the granting of asylum.

The Department noted that the applicants were German citizens and

that they had last lived in the Federal Republic of Germany. As they

had only applied for asylum after they encountered difficulties in

Switzerland in finding employment, it could not be said that asylum

was requested in order to obtain protection against serious

disadvantages in the Federal Rupublic of Germany. The Department

concluded that the right to asylum could not serve to fulfil the

professional aspirations of foreigners.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain of their imminent expulsion from

Switzerland. In their view, it has not been sufficiently

considered that, while still residing in Eastern Europe, they were

subjected to political persecution, and that their children are

disabled. The applicants rely on Articles 3-6, 8 and 12-14 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS

The application was introduced on 15 June 1990 and registered

on 21 June 1990.

On 21 June 1990 the President decided not to apply Rule 36 of

the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

THE LAW

The applicants complain under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention of their imminent expulsion from Switzerland. In their

view it has not been sufficiently considered that they were subjected

to political persecution in Eastern Europe and that their children are

disabled.

The Commission has constantly held that the right of an alien

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

Convention. However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances

involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a

serious fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention,

which prohibits inhuman treatment (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R.

47 p. 286 ; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July

1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32 et seq.).

In the present case the applicants have not shown that upon

their expulsion to the Federal Republic of Germany they would be

subjected to inhuman treatment. They have also not shown in what

respect their children would require treatment which could not be

afforded to them there.

As a result, the Commission cannot find that the applicants'

expulsion would be contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

on account of a risk of inhuman treatment in the Federal Republic of

Germany.

In any event after their return to the Federal Republic of

Germany the applicants can bring an application before the Commission

under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention in respect of any

violation of their Convention rights by the German authorities.

Insofar as the applicants further complain about their

expulsion under Articles 4-6 (Art. 4, 5, 6), 8 (Art. 8) and 12-14

(Art. 12, 13, 14) of the Convention, the Commission has examined these

remaining complaints as they have been submitted. However, after

considering these complaints as a whole, the Commission finds that

they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions

invoked by the applicants.

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

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (J. A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant