Search
document

Document text Analytics

ALTINKAYA v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 18418/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1248

Document date: January 13, 1992

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

ALTINKAYA v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 18418/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1248

Document date: January 13, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 18418/91

by Can and Seyhan ALTINKAYA

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 13 January 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 28 March 1991 by

Can and Seyhan ALTINKAYA against Sweden and registered on 26 June 1991

under file No. 18418/91;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the information submitted by the Government on

25 October and the applicants' letter of 28 November 1991;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant, born in 1964, is a Turkish and the second

applicant, born in 1966, is a Swedish citizen. They are husband and

wife and reside at Södertälje. Before the Commission they are

represented by Mr. Hans Engström, a lawyer practising at Skärholmen.

The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the applicants,

may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are Syrian-Orthodox Christians. The first

applicant came illegally to Sweden in July 1982. His Turkish passport

has expired, as he has not performed military service. The second

applicant came to Sweden as a child and her family is living in Sweden.

Since 1989 the applicants have lived together and in June 1990 they

married.

It appears that on 6 December 1990 the Government upheld a

previous decision of the National Immigration Board (statens

invandrarverk) rejecting the first applicant's request for a residence

permit in Sweden.

On 13 March 1991 the National Immigration Board rejected a

further request for a residence permit lodged by the first applicant.

It further found no reason to suspend the enforcement of the

deportation order previously issued with regard to him.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained that the first applicant, if returned,

will be brought to trial and be imprisoned for desertion as well as

possibly killed or persecuted; that, in any case, he will have to

perform "two years of hard military service in a Muslim army"; that the

applicants will be separated possibly for three years or longer, as the

second applicant's family is living in Sweden, does not speak Turkish

and would not be granted a residence permit in Turkey. They invoked

Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

On 3 April 1991 the applicants requested the Commission to apply

Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure in their case. This was rejected by

the President on the same day.

On 12 September 1991 the Rapporteur, pursuant to Rule 47 para.

2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, decided to request

further information from the Government. Following two extensions of

the time-limit the information was submitted by the Government on

25 October 1991. On 31 October 1991 comments on this information were

requested from the applicants.

By letter of 28 November 1991 the applicants stated that they

wished to withdraw their application, as the first applicant had been

granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention the

Commission notes that the applicants wish to withdraw their application

since the first applicant has been granted a permanent residence

permit. In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the matter

has been resolved. It further considers that no special circumstances

affecting the respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention

require the further examination of the application under Article 30

para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

For the reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant