16706/90

 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16706/90 by Seyit CETIN 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 16 May 1990 by Seyit CETIN against Switzerland and registered on 12 June 1990 under file No. 16706/90; 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 applicant, a Turkish citizen born in 1956, is a painter residing at Basel in Switzerland. According to the applicant's statements subsequently made before the Swiss authorities in 1984, while he resided at Nevsehir in Turkey he first belonged to an extreme right wing organisation. In 1980 he joined the left wing organisation Dev Yol. As a result, he was threatened by right wing extremists; shots were fired at his shop. In a fight with right wing extremists he injured one person, whereupon he no longer felt safe and went into hiding in Istanbul. In December 1981 he attempted to travel via Austria to the Federal Republic of Germany, though he was refused entry into Austria. He then returned to Turkey. On 10 April 1984 the applicant again left Turkey. On 15 April 1984 he entered Switzerland whereupon he applied for asylum at the Aliens' Police of the Canton of Basel-Stadt on account of persecution in Turkey. This request was dismissed by the Delegate for Refugees (Delegierte für das Flüchtlingswesen) on 16 October 1989. The applicant's subsequent appeal (Beschwerde) was dismissed by the Federal Department of Justice and Police (Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) on 26 April 1990. The Department found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficiently concrete measures of persecution. The Department saw a confirmation therefor in the fact that the applicant had been able to leave and subsequently to reenter Turkey in 1981. Insofar as the applicant claimed to have been sentenced to imprisonment in Turkey on account of his political activities, the Department noted that the applicant had been asked to submit within a time-limit a document to substantiate this allegation, but he had failed to do so. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains of his expulsion to Turkey which, after so many years in Switzerland, would constitute hardship for him. Insofar as the Swiss authorities criticised his lack of integration in Switzerland, for instance with regard to his irregular employment or certain criminal offences, he claims that this is partly due to certain misunderstandings. While he lost his money with gambling, he has imposed upon himself a prohibition from entering the gambling parlours concerned. The applicant claims that his wife and two children must leave him if he returns home penniless. The applicant does not rely on any particular provision of the Convention. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 16 May 1990 and registered on 12 June 1990. On 12 June 1990 the Acting President decided not to apply Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. THE LAW The applicant complains, without referring to any particular provision of the Convention, of his expulsion to Turkey which on account of his integration in Switzerland and the ensuing lack of income would cause hardship to him and his family in Turkey. 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 (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286). In the present case the applicant has not raised any allegations before the Commission which might indicate the existence of such exceptional circumstances. Even assuming that the applicant may be understood as referring in his application to the submissions he made before the Swiss authorities, the Commission notes that the alleged persecution occurred in 1980 and that subsequently he was able to leave and reenter Turkey in 1981 without difficulties. Moreover, the applicant failed to submit, both before the Swiss authorities and the Commission, any documents which would have substantiated his allegations regarding persecution in the past. As a result, the Commission cannot find the circumstances to be such as to warrant the conclusion that the applicant's expulsion would be contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention on account of a risk of ill-treatment in Turkey. In any event the Commission notes that after his return to Turkey the applicant can bring an application before the Commission under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention in respect of any violation of his Convention rights by the Turkish authorities. The application must therefore be rejected as being 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)