FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 47956/99 by Serring Momodou NJIE against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 26 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs W. Thomassen , President ,

Mrs E. Palm,

Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr B. Zupančič , Mr T. Panţîru , judges ,

and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 13 January 1999 and registered on 7 May 1999,

Having regard to the partial decision of 19 October 1999,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a national of Gambia, born in 1969.  When introducing his application he was serving a two years’ prison sentence in Sweden.

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

The applicant took up residence in Sweden in November 1995 after having married a Swedish citizen in Gambia.  The couple have two children, born in 1996 and 1997.  It appears that the applicant has relatives in Gambia and that he and his wife have visited Gambia on more than one occasion.

On 18 June 1998 the applicant was arrested under suspicion of having committed a narcotics offence of an aggravated nature ( grovt narkotikabrott ) that same day (possession of 30–40 grammes of heroin intended for sale).  He was subsequently detained on remand.

On 15 July 1998 the District Court ( tingsrätten ) of Gothenburg convicted the applicant and another Gambian national of drug trafficking.  The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment to be followed by expulsion from Sweden.  The court found that the severity of the criminal offence and the obvious risk of a relapse motivated life-long expulsion.

On 17 September 1998 the Court of Appeal ( hovrätten ) for Western Sweden upheld the District Court’s judgment.  The appellate court issued a ten year prohibition on the applicant’s return to Sweden (i.e. until 17 September 2008).  Having regard to the applicant’s family situation, the court came to the conclusion that the nature of the criminal offence justified expulsion, however for a limited time.  On 21 October 1998 the Supreme Court ( Högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal.

The applicant petitioned the Government for a revocation of the expulsion order.  On 11 March 1999 the Government rejected the petition.  A second petition was rejected on 10 June 1999.

The applicant was released on probation on 20 June 1999, after having served half his sentence.  On the same day he was deported to Gambia.

Subsequently, the applicant’s wife and children notified the population registration authority in writing that she intended to move on 29 September 1999.  Her notification did not contain any information about her future address.  In the summer of 1999, she contacted the local authorities and told them that she intended to go with her children first to London and then to an African country and that, therefore, the children would not start attending the day-care centre in the autumn, as had been planned.  According to the landlord of the house where the family lived, the applicant’s wife moved from the apartment and a so-called final inspection of the apartment took place on 1 October 1999.  The family’s telephone subscription was cancelled and neither the applicant nor his wife has any new telephone subscription in Sweden.  After the family moved, their mail was sent poste restante to the post-office of Farsta , Sweden, but this arrangement has ceased.  The post-office has no forwarding address.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that relatives of the other convicted Gambian had threatened to kill him if he returned to Gambia.

2. He furthermore maintained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the courts were prejudiced against him because of his ethnicity.

3. He referred also to his Swedish wife and the two children.  He alleged, under Article 8 of the Convention, that they could not follow him to Gambia and he would thus not be able to see them for 10 years.

PROCEDURE

The application was introduced on 13 January 1999 and registered on 7 May 1999.

On 8 June 1999 the Court (First Section) decided not to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

On 19 October 1999 the Court decided, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to invite the Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.  The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

The applicant’s wife, who represented the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, was informed of the above by letter of 28 October 1999, but the letter was returned with an indication that the addressee had moved.

The Government submitted their written observations on 26 January 2000 indicating, inter alia , that the applicant’s family’s whereabouts were unknown.

On 23 June 2000 the applicant’s wife was requested through registered mail to inform the Court of the family’s whereabouts and was informed that failure to reply might lead to the application being struck out of the list of cases.

The Court has not received any reply from the applicant or his representative (his wife).

DECISION

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention the Court notes that neither the applicant nor his representative has kept the Court informed of their change of residence, nor have they replied to letters from the Court.  In these circumstances the Court finds it established that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.  Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

Michael O’Boyle Wilhelmina Thomassen Registrar President