CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 mai 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 May 1986, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   G. SPERDUTI                   J. A. FROWEIN                   M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs. G. H. THUNE               Sir Basil HALL                 Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 12 June 1985 by H. A. against the Netherlands and registered on 28 June 1985 under file N° 11618/85;   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 of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.   The applicant is a Moroccan citizen, born in 1958.   He is represented by Mrs. M. D. van Aller, a lawyer practising at Amsterdam.   On 22 February 1979, the applicant entered the Netherlands and on 20 June 1979 he married a Dutch woman.   He subsequently obtained a residence permit, dependent on his marriage.   On 1 July 1979, the applicant started working at a nursing home, where he has been employed since.   From the money he owns, he apparently supports his family in Morocco.   The applicant separated from his wife on 8 May 1981 and subsequently divorced.   On 10 March 1983 he requested a new residence permit but this was rejected on 26 May 1983 since the applicant did not meet the criteria laid down in the Dutch Aliens Circular (Nederlandse Vreemdelingencirculaire).   A request for revision to the Deputy Minister (Staatssecretaris) of Justice was rejected on 6 October 1983 and finally the Council of State's Division for jurisdiction (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State) rejected the applicant's appeal against this decision on 7 May 1985.   The Council considered, inter alia, that according to section 11 of the Dutch Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet) a residence permit could be refused in the general interest and noted that the applicant could not claim a residence permit on the ground that he had been married to a Dutch woman since this marriage had not lasted for at least three years, nor could he claim a residence permit on the basis of any other regulation.   The Council decided that there were reasonable grounds for the decision of the authorities to refuse the applicant's request for a residence permit.   It appears that the applicant was expelled on 20 November 1985.   His lawyer has indicated that he nevertheless wishes to pursue his application.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant alleges a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. He complains that he is subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment because the expulsion forces him to give up his living and job in the Netherlands as a result of which he will no longer be able to support himself and his family in Morocco.   Furthermore, the applicant complains that he is deprived of his liberty and security of person because the policy of the Dutch Government with regard to aliens forces him to return to Morocco. The applicant invokes Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention in this respect.   Moreover, the applicant claims that his expulsion to Morocco constitutes an unjustified interference with his right to respect for private life.   He alleges that the policy of the Netherlands Government, which does not allow him to get an independent residence permit after his divorce, constitutes a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. In addition the applicant alleges that the Netherlands authorities violated Article 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention because they refused to give him an independent residence permit after his divorce.   Finally, the applicant states that the policy of the Netherlands Government leads to a collective expulsion of aliens because there are many aliens who are in the same position as the applicant, and he invokes Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-4) to the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained of inhuman and degrading treatment because the expulsion forces him to give up his living and job in the Netherlands.   He invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which provides:   "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."   The Commission recalls that the expulsion or extradition of an individual could, in certain exceptional cases, raise an issue under the Convention and in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3) when there are serious reasons to believe that the person convicted would be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision in the State to which he is to be deported (cf. e.g. Dec. No. 6315/73, 30.9.74, D.R. 1 p. 73).   However, the Commission is of the opinion that in the present case there are no indications that the applicant's treatment in Morocco would render his expulsion contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   This part of the application must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains that he is deprived of his liberty and security of person because the policy of the Dutch Government forces him to return to Morocco and he invokes Article 5, para. 1, sub-para. f (Art. 5-1-f) of the Convention which provides:   "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.   No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...   (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition."   The Commission notes that a deportation order was made against the applicant but that he was apparently not arrested or detained before the actual expulsion from the Netherlands.   Insofar as the expulsion involved a measure by which the applicant was deprived of his liberty, it must be considered as having been taken in conformity with Article 5, para. 1, sub-para. f (Art. 5-1-f) of the Convention.   Consequently, this part of the application must also be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.       The applicant further complains of an unjustified interference with his right to respect for private life and he invokes Article 8 (Art. 8) which reads as follows:   "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."   The Commission considers that even assuming that there was an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, this interference was justified for one or more of the reasons set out in the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8), such as "prevention of disorder". In this respect the Commission would emphasise the close connection between the policy of immigration control and considerations pertaining to public order (Dec. No. 8245/78, 6.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 98 ff). Consequently, this part of the application must also be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.       Furthermore, the applicant has complained of a violation of his right to marry, and he has relied on Article 12 (Art. 12) of Convention which provides that:   "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right."   The Commission, however, notes that the applicant has not established that his expulsion would prevent him from marrying or that his right to marry has in any way been restricted.   It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   5.       Finally the applicant complains that the policy of the Dutch Government leads to a collective expulsion of aliens and he invokes Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-4) to the Convention which provides:   "Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited."   In the view of the Commission "collective expulsion of aliens" means any measure of the competent authority compelling aliens as a group to leave the country, except where such a measure is taken after and on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular cases of each individual alien of the group (Dec. No. 7011/75, 3.10.75 D.R. 4 p. 235).   The Commission finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that there has been any decision by the Netherlands authorities which could be said to raise any issue under this provision and it follows that this complaint must also 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   Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission       (H. C. KRÜGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)