Search
document

Document text Analytics

SAENZ VANEGAS v. CYPRUS

Doc ref: 19899/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1444

Document date: December 8, 1992

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

SAENZ VANEGAS v. CYPRUS

Doc ref: 19899/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1444

Document date: December 8, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19899/92

by Enrique Jose SAENZ VANEGAS

against Cyprus

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 8 December 1992, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 21 April 1992 by

Enrique Jose SAENZ VANEGAS against Cyprus and registered on 24 April

1992 under file No. 19899/92;

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 citizen of Nicaragua, born in 1962. He is a

medical doctor residing in Nicosia. In the proceedings before the

Commission he is represented by Mr. Loukis Papaphilippou, a lawyer

practising in Nicosia.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant and his wife, a Cypriot citizen, married in

Nicaragua in 1985. The applicant's wife gave birth to a child in 1986.

The applicant came to Cyprus in summer 1987. He was granted a residence

and work permit in 1990. He was employed as medical doctor at the

District Hospitals of Larnaca and Limasol.

At the request of the applicant's wife, the district court of

Limasol issued on 12 November 1991 an order against the applicant

prohibiting him from taking the child out of Cyprus.

On 7 January 1992 the applicant applied for an extension of his

residence and work permit. His request was rejected on 17 March 1992

by the Migration Department of the Ministry of Interior and the

applicant was ordered to leave Cyprus immediately.

On 8 April 1992 the above decision of the Ministry was

communicated to the Aliens' Police Department who was asked to take the

necessary action with a view to the applicant's expulsion. On 9 April

1992 the applicant was requested to present himself to the Aliens'

Police. The applicant refused to leave Cyprus.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the expulsion order issued against

him. He alleges that this order is a discriminatory and degrading

treatment and that it violates his rights to security, to respect for

his family life and to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The

applicant invokes Articles 3, 5, 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention and

Article 1 of Protocol No 1.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 21 April 1992. The applicant

requested the Commission to take action in order to stay the execution

of the expulsion order.

On 22 April 1992 the President of the Commission decided not to

indicate to the Government of Cyprus pursuant to Rule 36 of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure, the measure suggested by the

applicant.

The application was registered on 24 April 1992.

On 4 June 1992 the member of the Commission designated as

Rapporteur requested information by the respondent Government on the

facts of the case. The Government submitted the information requested

on 13 July 1992. The applicant submitted comments in reply on 3 August

1992.THE LAW

The applicant complains of the expulsion order issued against him

and alleges that this order is contrary to Articles 3, 5, 8, 12 and 14

(Art. 3, 5, 8, 12, 14) of the Convention and Article 1 of

Protocol N° 1 (P1-1).

However, the Commission recalls that according to Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention, it can only deal with an application after

the exhaustion of domestic remedies according to the generally

recognized rules of international law. The Commission observes that in

the present case the applicant failed to challenge the expulsion order

before the Supreme Court of Cyprus and has not therefore exhausted the

domestic remedies available under Cypriot law. Moreover, the Commission

finds that the examination of the case does not disclose any particular

circumstance which could absolve the applicant, according to the

generally recognised rules of international law, from the obligation

to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the

obligation as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and that the

application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)

of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INDAMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant