CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 juillet 1987

.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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12097/86                       by Veronika Magdalena KÜNZI-BRENZIKOFER                          and Others                       against Denmark             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 July 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   C. A. NØRGAARD                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H. C. KRÜGER 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 April 1986 by Veronika Magdalena Künzi-Brenzikofer and Others against Denmark and registered on 15 April 1986 under file N° 12097/86;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission ;           Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 19 September 1986 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 4 March 1987;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.           All 17 applicants are members of the Church of Scientology. At the time of the introduction of the application they were all living in Copenhagen, Denmark.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mr.   Nourad Oussedik and Mrs.   Brigitte Bouvier, lawyers practising in Paris, France.           The application concerns the applicants' expulsion from Denmark.   Applicable domestic law and practice           Section 63, sub-section 1 of the Danish Constitution (Danmarks Riges Grundlov) reads as follows:     "The courts of law may determine any question relating to the limitation of powers of the Administration.   However, no person desiring to raise such a question shall, by bringing the matter before the courts, be excused from temporarily complying with the decision taken by the Administration."   Section 9, sub-section 2 of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) reads:     "Upon application, a residence permit may be issued to other aliens, provided -   i.       the alien, in cases not falling within sub-section 1, is closely connected through relatives or in a similar manner with a person permanently resident in Denmark;   ii.      the alien, in cases not falling within section 7, sub-section 1, is in a situation where significant considerations of a humanitarian nature weigh heavily in favour of granting the application;   iii.     significant employment or business considerations make it appropriate;   iv.      exceptional reasons otherwise make it appropriate."           Under section 12 of the Aliens Act the Minister of Justice shall lay down more detailed rules on residence permits, including more particularly on the criteria for issue of residence permits, on the duration of their validity, and on the conditions that may be stipulated for the stay.           Such rules are laid down in Ministry of Justice Executive Order No. 19 of 18 January 1984.   Pursuant to section 22 of the Order, residence permits according to section 9, sub-section 2 are issued for permanent or temporary stays in Denmark.   When deciding whether to issue residence permits for permanent or temporary stay consideration shall be given, in particular, to the purpose of the stay and the wishes of the applicant.           To persons affiliated to the Church of Scientology, residence permits are issued according to the following guidelines:           To persons affiliated to the Church of Scientology residence permits are issued for two-year periods pursuant to section 9, sub-section 2 (iv) of the Aliens Act, provided they are doing regular missionary work in Denmark.   Regular missionary work shall be taken to mean activities in respect of ordinary religious ceremonies or the teaching of the religion to others.   Residence permits are not issued for the purpose of studying Scientology.   After a two-year stay it will in exceptional cases be possible, based on a case-by-case consultation, to extend the permit, after consultation with the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs where appropriate.           Consultants, functionaries and others employed by the Scientology organisation, who are not doing regular missionary work, are treated as any other alien.   Nationals of another EEC country working for Scientology without doing regular missionary work are given an EEC residence certificate provided all relevant conditions are fulfilled.   To non-EEC nationals residence and work permits are issued only when all general conditions are fulfilled.           No new residence permit according to the rule applicable to missionaries is granted to persons previously working with Scientology in Denmark even if the applicants have been resident outside Denmark for a long period.   Residence and work permits, as well as EEC residence certificates, are only issued subject to fulfilment of the general conditions.           Until 1981 members of the Church of Scientology were granted temporary extensions of their residence permits beyond the usual two-year period on a larger scale than today.   The standard procedure was changed in 1981, as a result of which aliens affiliated to the Church of Scientology will be given residence permits according to the rules applicable to persons affiliated to officially recognised religious communities.   This change of procedure was communicated to members of the church and their spouses when they last had their residence permit extended.   The personal situation of the applicants           1 and 2) Veronika Künzi-Brenzikofer and Franz Peter Künzi are both Swiss citizens, born in 1954 and 1955 respectively.   They came to Denmark in 1975 and were granted a one-year residence permit, renewed by the Ministry of Justice each year.   They have two children, both born in Denmark in 1981 and 1982.   The whole family speaks Danish and the children attended a kindergarten in Denmark.           Mrs.   Künzi-Brenzikofer's, application for a renewal of her residence permit was rejected by the Aliens Supervisory Board (Tilsynet med Udlændinge) on 10 August 1982.   Her husband's application for a renewal was first rejected in 1982.   A new application was rejected on 25 March 1983.   Both applicants appealed against the decisions to the Ministry of Justice.           3) Erwin Blum is a Swiss citizen born in 1950.   He came to Denmark in 1977 and received a one-year residence permit which was renewed every year until 1982.   His application for a renewal was rejected on 7 December 1982.   The decision was appealed against to the Ministry of Justice.           4 and 5) Matthias Tinner is a Swiss citizen, born in 1950.   He came to Denmark in 1977.   His wife, Renate Maria Tinner, is an Austrian citizen, born in 1958.   She came to Denmark in 1981.   Both received a one-year residence permit upon arrival and it was renewed each year.   Their applications for a renewal were rejected on 2 August 1983.   They appealed against the decisions to the Ministry of Justice.           6) Heinz Martzak Görike is an Austrian citizen, born in 1944.   He came to Denmark in 1977.   His application for a renewal of his residence permit was first rejected in 1982.   A new application was rejected on 18 April 1984.   This decision was also appealed against to the Ministry of Justice.           7) Rainer Johannes Gritsch is an Austrian citizen, born in 1957.   He came to Denmark in 1977 and received a one-year residence permit which was subsequently renewed at yearly intervals until 1983 when his renewal application was rejected on 7 February.   The applicant appealed against the decision to the Ministry of Justice.           8) Thomas Bucher is a Swiss citizen, born in 1958. He came to Denmark in 1978.   His application for a renewal of his residence permit was rejected on 30 December 1982.   He also appealed to the Ministry of Justice.           9) Mohammed Laimeche is an Algerian citizen, born in 1955.   He came to Denmark in 1982 and was granted a two-year residence permit. An extension of this permit was refused on 20 February 1984.   He appealed to the Ministry of Justice.           10) Beat Schumacher is a Swiss citizen, born in 1957.   He came to Denmark in 1978 and received a one-year residence permit which was subsequently renewed each year.   His brother and wife also live in Denmark.   The applicant's application for a renewal of the residence permit as well as that of his wife (who is not an applicant in this case) were rejected on 20 June 1984.   Both appealed to the Ministry of Justice.           11) Anna Maria Breuer is a Swiss citizen, born in 1956.   She came to Denmark in 1977 and received a one-year residence permit which was subsequently renewed each year.   She is divorced.   On 11 May 1983 the applicant's application for a renewal of the residence permit was rejected.   She appealed against the decision to the Ministry of Justice.           12 and 13) Anton Kinzl is a Swiss citizen, born in 1950.   He came to Denmark in 1975 and received a one-year residence permit, which has subsequently been renewed each year.   His wife, Béatrice Renée Kinzl, is also a Swiss citizen, born in 1952.   She came to Denmark in 1977 and received, on arrival, a one-year residence permit which has also been renewed each year.   They have two children, both born in Denmark in 1980 and 1981.   On 22 June 1983 the applicants' applications for a renewal of their permits were rejected.   The decisions were appealed against to the Ministry of Justice.           14) Joseph Augustin Burch is a Swiss citizen, born in 1947. He came to Denmark in 1981 and received a one-year residence permit. His request for an extension was rejected on 4 March 1983.   He appealed to the Ministry of Justice.           15) Paul Ellensohn is an Austrian citizen, born in 1961.   He came to Denmark in 1981 and received a one-year residence permit. His request for renewal was rejected on 6 May 1983.   He also appealed to the Ministry of Justice.           16) Yves Küpfer is a Swiss citizen, born in 1956.   He came to Denmark in 1983 and received a two-year residence permit which has not been subsequently renewed.           17) Maria Madeleine Thut is a Swiss citizen, born in 1925. She came to Denmark in 1976 as a student and received a student residence permit.   In 1982 she applied for an ordinary residence permit but this was rejected on 14 October 1982.   She appealed against the decision to the Ministry of Justice.           As set out above it appears that all applicants, except for Yves Küpfer (No. 16), appealed against the decisions of the Aliens Supervisory Board, subsequently called the Directorate for Aliens (Direktoratet for Udlændinge), to the Ministry of Justice. Furthermore, after the change of procedure introduced in 1981 the applicants contested its lawfulness, submitting the question to various authorities.   For this reason, and after consultations with, inter alia, the Church of Scientology, the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Ministry of Education, the decisions on the applicants' appeals were not given by the Ministry of Justice until 28 June 1985.   All appeals were rejected and all applicants, who had appealed, were requested to leave Denmark no later than 1 September 1985.           The applicants did not comply with this request.   Instead, on 12 September 1985, with the assistance of their Danish lawyer, L, they all, except for Yves Küpfer (No. 16) but including other persons, lodged a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.   For this reason the Ministry of Justice by letter of 11 November 1985 postponed the deadline for leaving the country until further notice.           Having examined the case the Ombudsman in his report of 6 March 1986 found no reason to criticise the decisions taken. Regarding the applicants in the case which is now before the Commission, the Ombudsman suggested that they be given at least a month to prepare their departure.   Accordingly, the Ministry of Justice decided on 11 March 1986 that the applicants, except for Yves Küpfer (No. 16), should leave the country on 10 April 1986 at the latest.           The applicants did not comply with this order either.   Instead, through another Danish lawyer, A, the applicants, except Yves Küpfer and Marie Madeleine Thut, on 10 April 1986, asked the Directorate for Aliens and the Ombudsman for a reconsideration of their case.   A meeting between representatives of the Church of Scientology and the Minister of Justice furthermore took place on 9 April 1986.   However, by letters of 10, 11 and 14 April the Ministry of Justice, insofar as it concerned the applicants of the present case, found it unwarranted to change the date of departure.           On 15 April 1986 all applicants, except Yves Küpfer (No. 16), through their Danish lawyer, L, instituted proceedings in the High Court (Østre Landsret) against the Ministry of Justice in accordance with their constitutional right set out in section 63 of the Constitution.   They argued that the Ministry of Justice should be compelled to repeal its decisions of 28 June 1985 and grant the applicants residence permits as requested.   They referred inter alia to the long period of time they had already lived in Denmark.   This case has subsequently been withdrawn by the applicants.           After having left Denmark, Veronika Künzi-Brenzikofer, Franz Peter Künzi, Renate Maria and Matthias Tinner, Beat Schumacher, Anna Maria Breuer and Marie Madeleine Thut submitted to the Directorate of Aliens a request to have the Ministry of Justice's administrative decision concerning their residence permits brought before the courts in accordance with section 52 of the Aliens Act which provides for a special procedure whereby an alien has the right to have certain specific decisions concerning residence permits and expulsion set out in this section brought before the court by the Directorate of Aliens at the request of the alien concerned.           By letter of 17 July 1986 the applicants were informed that they had all previously been granted a residence permit under section 9, sub-section 2 no. 4 of the Aliens Act which, however, was not mentioned in section 52 of the Act.   Accordingly a decision taken in accordance with this provision could not be brought before the courts according to the Aliens Act.   COMPLAINTS           The applicants invoke Articles 6 para.1, 8 and 11 in conjunction with Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.           Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicants complain that, although they could bring their case before the High Court, this remedy could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of Article 6 para. 1 since this action had no suspensive effect.   Regarding the applicants' complaints, they did not therefore have at their disposal an impartial tribunal which could, in a fair hearing, determine the civil rights which allegedly were at stake.           The applicants also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the decisions rejecting their applications for residence permits violate their right to respect for their family life.   Many of the applicants came to Denmark in the mid 70s and the Government's decisions are without motivation.   None of the applicants have been found guilty of any criminal offence or otherwise acted in a way which could allow the application of Article 8 para. 2.           The violation under Article 8 is particularly grave in regard to those applicants who have small children, all born in Denmark and with no ties with any other country.           In conjunction with Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention the applicants furthermore invoke Article 11 alleging that the Church of Scientology in Denmark is one of only four Mother Churches and the existence of this religious association constitutes the very reason for their settling in Denmark.   The departure of the applicants from Denmark would rupture the longstanding links with their numerous friends united in this association.           Finally, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 the applicants allege that the motives behind the refusals to renew the residence permits were merely to get rid of persons belonging to the Church of Scientology.   The measure taken, in particular by the Ministry of Justice on 28 June 1985, rejecting all appeals should be considered as a collective expulsion of the applicants.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced and registered on 15 April 1986.           On the same day the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the Government to submit certain information as to the facts of the case.           The Government submitted this information on 30 April 1986 and the applicant's comments thereon were submitted on 2 July 1986.           On 18 July 1986 the Commission decided to invite the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were submitted on 19 September 1986 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 4 March 1987.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES           The Government           As to the admissibility of the case, the Government have submitted that the activities of the Danish public administration are subject to a legality principle under which regulations and decisions of the administration are not allowed to violate the Danish Constitution and statutes passed by the Danish Parliament, nor are they allowed to interfere in the sphere of private citizens' activities, except where specifically authorised by law.           Under the provisions of the Danish Constitution, the courts are expressly and directly authorised to review administrative regulations and decisions, cf. section 63 of the Danish Constitution.           In court practice, judicial review of administrative acts takes place both in regard to general regulations and to concrete decisions made by the Administration.           If, on the basis of a general administrative regulation authorised by statute, the Administration has issued a concrete restrictive or mandatory injunction, or a rejection, the addressee of such injunction etc. will   be entitled to go to court, even if the injunction etc. simply represents a correct application of the standard rule.   By these means the addressee may not only cause the discretion of the Administration in a particular case to be reviewed but also the general regulations.           The Danish Constitution contains no express provision with regard to the effect of a validly concluded treaty on domestic law. The legal principles governing this question are, however, quite clear.           Under Danish law provisions of a treaty, which are binding upon Denmark, are, generally speaking, not directly enforceable by Danish courts of law or by Danish administrative authorities.           However, when in doubt about the interpretation of a legal provision, the law-enforcing authorities shall prefer the interpretation that will best comply with existing treaty obligations.   This principle is known as the rule of interpretation.           Furthermore, in the absence of any special indications to the contrary, a conflict between a treaty provision that has previously been observed in Denmark, and a provision in legislation enacted later, should be solved by applying the new provision in a manner that will respect the treaty provision, even if the tenor of the new provision is clearly at variance with the treaty.   This is known as the rule of presumption:   the courts should "presume" that it has not been the intention of Parliament to pass legislation contrary to Denmark's international obligations.           An extensive formulation of the rule of interpretation is given in a memorandum from the Ministry of Justice:             "...   In the Ministry's view, Danish law courts         would in all probability prefer a mere ad hoc         application of a law to a literal interpretation         if the latter would make the state of Denmark         responsible under international law for an         unintentional violation of a treaty."           This formulation of the rule of interpretation was accepted by the Danish Government when evaluating the questions of constitutional law raised in regard to the Danish entry into the European Communities.           In the present context one aspect of the widening of the rule of interpretation is particularly worth noting, i.e. its consequences for the exercise of discretionary powers by administrative authorities.   On this point the memorandum from the Ministry of Justice states that administrative authorities should exercise discretionary powers in such a way that the administrative acts - be it decisions or general regulations - conform to validly contracted international obligations.   This should be regarded as a legal obligation enforceable by judicial review under section 63 of the Danish Constitution.           In Denmark, review by the courts of the Executive's general and specific decisions pursuant to section 63 of the Constitution is a common legal remedy.   In the opinion of the Government, this legal remedy should ordinarily have been tried prior to the filing of an application with the Commission even though institution of proceedings has no suspensive effect, cf. section 63 of the Constitution.           That section 63 of the Constitution concerning court supervision of the Executive is a legal remedy which must have been exhausted appears to have been assumed also by the Commission in the case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Petersen v.   Denmark (Comm. Report 21.3.75 Eur.   Court H.R., Series B No. 21).           However, in two cases involving expulsion of aliens, the Commission assumed that institution of proceedings pursuant to section 63 of the Danish Constitution is not effective within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention and need not be exhausted because such proceedings do not suspend the duty to implement the administrative order in question (No. 7011/75, Dec. 3.10.75, D.R. 4 p. 215 and No. 7465/76, Dec. 29.9.76, D.R. 2 p. 153).           In cases involving expulsion of aliens, the reason why the alien wishes to remain in Denmark will frequently be his fear of returning to his home country, for instance on account of war or fear of reprisals from the authorities of his home country.   Such was the situation in both the above quoted cases in which the value of proceedings might consequently be dubious once the aliens in question had left Denmark.           But in the present case the reason why the applicants wish to remain in Denmark is not any fear of returning to their home country but solely their links with Denmark and with the Church of Scientology.   Moreover, the applicants could have pursued the proceedings by returning to Denmark themselves because six months after their departure from Denmark they would be allowed to enter Denmark according to the general rules and to stay there for up to three months without a visa.   It might also have been possible for them to obtain permission to stay for a brief period for the purpose of looking after their interests during court proceedings.           As mentioned above, Danish courts are expressly and directly authorised to review administrative regulations and decisions, and as stated in the foregoing, it is an element of the so-called rule of interpretation that Danish administrative authorities are considered under an obligation to exercise discretionary powers in such a way that administrative acts, whether decisions or general regulations, conform to international obligations.   In fact the Danish courts have in several cases examined the conformity of administrative acts with the European Convention on Human Rights.   Hence the Government do not accept the non-suspensive effect of proceedings under section 63 as an argument for considering that the legal remedy should not be effective within the meaning of Article 26.           In the opinion of the Danish Government the application must therefore be declared inadmissible.           As to the merits of the case, the Government have furthermore submitted that the Commission has constantly held that the right of a person to enter and to take up residence in a country of which he is not a national is not as such guaranteed by the Convention but an expulsion of a person from a country where close family members reside may raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention.           However, as far as the Danish Government are aware, the case at hand holds no examples of family separation.   Those applicants who are married are the spouses of aliens whose residence permits have not been extended either, and with one exception, there are no known family ties with Denmark.   The applicants moreover held temporary residence permits only and therefore they had never had grounds for counting on staying in Denmark indefinitely.           Hence, without any family ties with Denmark on behalf of the applicants and without any justified expectation of being allowed to stay in Denmark, and since there appear to be no obstacles to the applicants effectively establishing their family life in their home countries, the Government find that this part of the application should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.           As to the questions raised under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the Government have submitted that each of the applicants' cases was dealt with separately and an evaluation was made on a case-by-case basis to determine whether under the provisions of the Aliens Act and the Executive Order the persons in question were entitled to additional extension or, perhaps, permanent residence permits.   That the outcome of the applicants' cases turned out to be identical is thus due only to the fact that none was covered by any of the provisions of the Act, such as the provisions on close family or similar ties to a person permanently resident in Denmark.           Finally, the Government have rejected the applicants' allegations concerning discrimination, since persons affiliated to the Church of Scientology are treated according to precisely the same guidelines as are persons affiliated to other religious communities.           The applicants           As to the admissibility of the case, the applicants have submitted the following:           The Danish Government admit that any proceedings instituted in accordance with section 63 of the Constitution have no suspensive effect.   They claim that this would not be a barrier to the existence of an effective and adequate remedy due to the fact that the applicants' wish to remain in Denmark is not caused by any fear of returning to their home countries, for instance, on account of war or reprisals from the authorities of their home countries, but solely by their links with Denmark and with the Church of Scientology in Denmark.           The rule that the non-suspensive effect of an appeal of an administrative decision would preclude the existence of an effective and adequate remedy cannot be subordinated to any condition of personal threat or danger to the applicant.           The Commission has upheld as constant case-law that not only are proceedings that do not suspend the duty to implement the administrative order in question, to be considered as ineffective or inadequate remedies, but such proceedings need not be exhausted if they are certain not to be effective or adequate.           More directly pertinent to the present case, the Commission has in several instances found that a foreigner who submits a complaint concerning a final administrative decision on deportation need not take steps to have the matter tried in court on the basis of section 63 of the Danish Constitution.   It was decided that the possibility of the courts to review the legality of the administrative decision in accordance with section 63 could not   be considered as an effective legal remedy since filing suit had no suspensive effect (cf.   No. 7011/75, Dec. 3.10.75, D.R. 4 p. 215 and No. 7465/76, Dec. 29.9.76, D.R. 2 p. 153).           It follows from this case law that the conditions of exhaustion of domestic remedies as laid down in Article 26 of the Convention are not applied blindly.           The Commission has considered that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective rights.   This condition will be found to be particularly difficult to apply to the letter when one is faced with administrative decisions, immediately enforceable, which would result in immediate and irreversible damage, suffered despite any internal avenues of recourse being pursued.           In the present case it is clear that the applicants have been compelled to leave Danmark by a given date, and that the police have been ordered to ensure that such be carried out no matter what, in spite of any internal remedy that could have been engaged, and while, in fact, most of the applicants, due to their length of stay in Denmark, were entitled to permanent resident status.           This brutal rupture with their legitimately established home has created certain immediate and irreversible damage for these applicants.           Contrary to the Danish Government's allegations, it is not sufficient that the applicants could pursue the proceedings by returning to Denmark six months after their departure and stay there for up to three months without a visa, for the Danish Government to claim that it provides an effective and adequate remedy.           Furthermore, as concerns the Government's assertion that it might also have been possible for them to obtain permission to stay for a brief period for the purpose of looking after their interests during court proceedings, the Danish Government show themselves to be of particularly bad faith.   The applicants had indeed submitted requests for such permission to the Ministry of Justice on 14 April 1986, indicating therein their intention to go before the High Court pursuant to section 63 of the Danish Constitution and the need for suspensive effect of this appeal in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention.   Nevertheless the Ministry of Justice instructed the competent police authorities to ensure that the applicants left the country immediately.           Finally, in order definitively to refute the affirmations of the Danish Government as to the existence of a certain effective and adequate remedy, the applicants refer to the Directorate of Aliens' reply of 17 July 1986 to each of their applications (filed after having followed the administrative order, thus while being outside Danish territory) for leave to appeal the administrative decision to the court as set out in THE FACTS (p.6 above).   It is clear from this that the applicants could not bring their case before the courts.           The Danish Government are therefore ill-advised to claim before the Commission that an avenue of recourse was available to the applicants, and to conclude the inadmissibility of their application before the Commission, when, in reality, this Government have expressly denied these same applicants any right to an action against the administrative decisions before the Danish jurisdictions.           Thus this document, which the Danish Government had wittingly omitted to mention before the Commission, irrefutably demonstrates that the recourse allegedly open to the applicants does not in fact exist, nor, consequently, the possibility for the applicants to complain of violations of the Convention before the Danish jurisdictions.           The applicants consider they have demonstrated that a recourse pursuant to section 63 of the Danish Constitution could not be considered as an effective and adequate remedy, firstly, because of its non-suspensive effect, secondly, because, as made clear by the Ministry of Justice itself, this same recourse was not even open to the applicants.   The applicants submit that, in any event, such a recourse would not have been an effective remedy as it would have offered no chances of success.           In more general terms concerning the interpretation of section 63 of the Constitution, the situation is that this section does not leave open the possibility of control of the Ministry's discretionary evaluation.   The outcome of a supposed court case, which would have been wholly concerned with the correctness of the Ministry's discretionary evaluation, would have been certain beforehand.           The applicants maintain that the principle upheld by the Commission as regards the effectiveness of a remedy appears to   be relevant to the present case:   an appeal is ineffective and does not therefore have to be pursued if it is certain that, considering the constant case-law, it does not offer any chance of success (cf.   No. 7705/76, Dec. 5.7.77, D.R. 9 p. 196 (203)).           As to the merits of their complaints, the applicants have submitted the following:           The Commission and the Court of Human Rights have found with regard to Article 8 that its object is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities in his private or family life.           The Court and the Commission have thus intended to guarantee individuals the freedom to organise their private and family life as they see fit on the conditions that, firstly, they establish themselves within a given country, secondly, that they conduct themselves as law-abiding citizens.   These two conditions being fulfilled and respected, the public authorities are bound not to interfere arbitrarily within this sphere.           In the present case, the applicants as individuals have each fulfilled and respected the above conditions.   They were accepted within the Danish territory and granted residence permits in accordance with the law, they established their proper private and family lives each in his own way, which could not in any manner be censured by the public authorities in a democratic society.   This was even more so as no activity contrary to the public order could be reproached to any of the applicants.   In consequence, the applicants submit that they should not have been deported without any consideration given to the arbitrary interference in the private and family life they had established.           In this case, it is clear that the Danish authorities gave no due attention to the applicants' association to Danish society, including the length of stay in Denmark as well as the strain resulting from the deportation as demonstrated in the application.           Had the authority given due attention to the applicant's situation, it is incontestable that the applicants had a legitimate expectancy to be allowed to stay in Denmark and to found their private and family life in conformity with the general practice there.           The applicants maintain, therefore, that their rights and freedoms under Article 8, which are to be guaranteed whether they be nationals or not of a given state, have been violated by the Danish Government who have, in pursuing their intention to restrict the growth of the Church of Scientology in Denmark, arbitrarily interfered in their individual private and family lives and the organisation thereof.           As concerns the question of a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, the Danish Government allege that no such violations have occurred.           However, contrary to the affirmations of the Danish Government, the expulsion of the applicants cannot be qualified as the result of a series of concrete individual decisions taken upon an objective basis.   The applicants strongly protest against these claims from the Danish Government according to which their individual situations would have been taken into consideration.           No real evaluation on a case-by-case basis has been made to determine whether, under the provisions of the Aliens Act and the Executive Order, the persons in question were entitled to additional extension or perhaps permanent residence permits.           In an attempt to have their individual situations taken into account by the Ministry of Justice, the applicants each submitted information concerning their personal situations, their links with and their social and family life in Denmark.   This they did on 10 April 1986.   The collective response from the Ministry of Justice was received within a period of less than 24 hours and stated essentially that the information was irrelevant to the decisions.   It is thus not admissible that the Danish Government continue to allege that even a hasty examination of each of the individual cases had been carried out.           As regards the question of discrimination, the Danish Government base their argumentation exclusively on the fact that the new rules, though clearly less favourable to the members of the Church of Scientology, could not be considered as discriminatory as, according to the Government, they resulted in an equalisation of treatment with the members of other religious communities.   These allegations are, however, contrary to reality which is shown in the way members of the Catholic Church are treated by the authorities.           Consequently, the Danish Government can maintain only with great difficulty that the Church of Scientology alone escaped application of the two-year rule since the Catholic Church had benefited before 1985, and benefits today, from a much more favourable treatment.           It is therefore incontestable that the expelled applicants have been subjected to arbitrary and highly discriminatory treatment because of their association with the Church of Scientology. This special treatment reserved for the applicants constitutes not only violations of Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, in that the interference in their private life, their freedom of association and their collective expulsion is patent, but also violations of the same Articles taken together with Articles 9 and 14, in that the treatment by the Danish Government was founded on the applicants' belonging to a determined religion and differs from their treatment of members of other religions.   THE LAW   1.       Under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the applicants have complained that, although they could bring their case before the High Court, this remedy could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) since this measure had no suspensive effect.   They did not therefore have at their disposal an impartial tribunal which could in a fair hearing determine the civil rights which allegedly were at stake.           Under the above provision of the Convention everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him.           The applicants have not alleged that what is being determined in their case is a criminal charge and neither has the Commission found room for such an interpretation.   Accordingly, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) would only be applicable in the present case if the dispute related to the applicants' "civil righs or obligations".           In this respect the Commission has found Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) to be inapplicable to proceedings regarding immigration and deportation matters (e.g.   No. 7289/75 and 7349/76, Dec. 14.7.77, D.R. 9 p. 57 (76) with further references, No. 7729/76, Dec. 17.12.76, D.R. 7 p. 164 and No. 8244/78, Dec. 2.5.79, D.R. 17 p. 149).           In the present case the Commission recalls that the questions the applicants raise relate to their alleged right to remain in Denmark and not to be expelled from that country.   Consequently, in view of the said case-law, they do not involve the determination of civil rights or obligations within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.           It follows that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is not applicable in the present case and this part of the application must therefore be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention as incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention.   2.       The applicants also complain under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention of the decision rejecting their applications for residence permits. Under Article 11 (Art. 11+9+14), in conjunction with Articles 9 and 14, they furthermore allege that their departure from Denmark has ruptured the long-standing links with their numerous friends united in the Church of Scientology and, finally, they complain, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-4) to the Convention, that the measure taken constitutes a collective expulsion, directed at the collective membership of this Church.           The Commission recalls that it is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by an applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions referred to if, inter alia, the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been complied with.   In other words, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted accordin