16766/90

 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)