CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 octobre 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. 11531/85                       by A.A.                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 October 1987 the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              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 25 February 1985 by A.A. against Sweden and registered on 20 April 1985 under file N° 11531/85;           Having regard to:        -   the first report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure of the Commission,        -   the Government's written observations of 13 March 1986 and the         applicant's observations in reply of 5 June 1986,        -   the second report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure,        -   the Commission's decision of 13 July 1987 to adjourn the         examination of the case,        -   the third report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure.           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:     THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Turkish citizen born in 1943.   He is resident at N., Sweden, and is represented before the Commission by Mr Tomas V. Wellton, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The applicant came to Sweden in September 1980.   After about ten months he obtained a permit to stay in Sweden on political grounds.   However, he was not granted refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees.           The present case relates to one of twelve similar cases handled by the Swedish authorities following a very serious event in Uppsala in June 1984.   A former member of the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK) was then shot down in cold blood in a market place in Uppsala.   The murderer was apprehended and sentenced to imprisonment for life and expulsion.   In connection with the investigation of the murder the police found that some of the persons whose names had appeared in the police investigation could be suspected of being active in an organisation which appeared to be a cover for PKK in Sweden.   This led the authorities to take action in accordance with the Aliens Act (utlänningslagen).           However, on 5 September 1984, the County Prosecutor (länsåklagaren) of Uppsala decided to discontinue criminal investigations against any of the individuals who were later detained under the Aliens Act.   The applicant was himself never suspected or contacted by the police or the prosecutor of Uppsala.           On 18 September 1984 the National Police Board (rikspolisstyrelsen) decided to take the applicant into custody (förvar) under Section 50 of the Aliens Act, the reason being that that there were probable causes for expelling the applicant under Section 47 of the Aliens Act and that it could be feared that he would evade.           Section 50, para. 1, of the Aliens Act reads:           "An alien may be taken into custody if there is probable         cause for refusal of entry or expulsion under Sections 38,         43, 47 or 48 or if a question arises as to the enforcement         of such a measure or expulsion as a result of a criminal         offence.   Custody is decided by the authority which deals         with the refusal of entry or the expulsion matter or the         enforcement matter.   Custody may only be ordered however if,         in view of the alien's personal circumstances and other         conditions, it may reasonably be feared that he will evade         or engage in criminal activity or if the alien's identity is         unclear ..."           Section 47 reads:           "An alien may be expelled from the realm if the conditions         in Section 30 are at hand.           A decision on expulsion according to the first paragraph   is         decided upon by the Government.   In such cases a hearing         should take place.   An opinion should be obtained from the         National Board of Immigration (statens invandrarverk), if         there is no obstacle to it on account of the matter being         extremely urgent."           Section 30 reads:           "An alien who arrives in Sweden should be refused entry, if         there are substantial reasons to assume that he belongs to or         acts for such an organisation or group as referred to in the         second paragraph and if in addition, in view of what is known         about his previous activities or otherwise, it may be feared         that he, in the realm, will participate in such activities as         referred to in that paragraph.           The provisions in the first paragraph refer to an organisation         or group in respect of which it is feared, in view of what is         known about its activities, that it will resort to violence,         threats or coercion outside its home country to achieve political         aims and thus commit such acts in this country."           On 21, 22 and 25 September 1984, the applicant was interrogated by the National Police Board.           Section 53 of the Aliens Act provides, inter alia:           "An alien may not, unless there are extraordinary reasons         (synnerliga skäl) for it, be kept in custody for a longer         period than two weeks or, ....           A decision to keep an alien in continued custody is each         time valid for no longer than two weeks from the date of the         decision or, .....   Any decision about continued custody for a         longer period than indicated in the first paragraph should be         preceded by a hearing."           On 28 September 1984 there was a hearing before the National Police Board concerning the continued custody of the applicant. Section 57 of the Aliens Act provides that such a hearing should take place before the authority which deals with the matter.   This section reads:           "The hearing shall be held before the authority which deals         with the matter.   The National Board of Immigration may         however decide that the Regional Administrative Court         (länsrätten) or the County Administrative Board         (länsstyrelsen) shall hold the hearing in a matter which         the National Board of Immigration deals with and in         that context decide that others than the alien should be         heard.   In cases which are dealt with by the Government, the         responsible Minister, or a public servant designated by the         Minister, may decide on a hearing and on the hearing of         others than the alien as well as, unless the second         paragraph applies, designate the court or the administrative         authority which should hold the hearing.           In matters concerning refusal of entry under Section 30 or         expulsion under Sections 47 or 48 the hearing shall be held         before the Stockholm District Court (tingsrätt), unless         specific reasons dictate otherwise."           According to Section 58 of the Aliens Act the authority which holds the hearing may, where necessary, appoint a police authority or another person to act as official counsel (allmänt ombud) at the hearing.           The applicant maintains that at the hearing on 28 September the National Police Board appointed the head of the anti-terrorist department within the National Police Board as official counsel.   The applicant submits that at the hearing it was the official counsel who directed the hearing while the representatives of the police, who were subordinates to the head of the said department, did not utter a word.   In the applicant's view the official counsel had appointed himself as chairman.   The Government do not accept this.   They maintain that there was no official counsel present.   Such a counsel was not appointed until 15 October 1984.           Section 60 of the Aliens Act provides that, at the hearing, the circumstances which could have an influence on the decision should be carefully examined.   The alien should be given the possibility of expressing his opinion and stating his view on the circumstances invoked.           The applicant submits that at the hearing no single condition of any real importance was mentioned by the National Police Board. Instead the Board only went through a standardised questionnaire which was the same for all eleven apprehended individuals.   The interrogation is confidential.   The questions were of the following nature:           What is your identity?   Have you worked?   How is your family situation?   In which organisation have you been politically active? What sort of contacts will you make if you are released?   Will you discuss the custody with anybody?   Is there a wish of retaliation on you from political groups?   Are you prepared to report to the Swedish authorities about any criminal activity you might get to know about after your release?           On 1 October 1984 the National Police Board, after having interrogated the applicant again, decided that his custody should continue, since the reasons therefor still persisted and there were extraordinary reasons for it.           On 2 and 3 October 1984 the applicant was interrogated by the National Police Board.           On 2 October 1984 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping against the custody decisions of 18 September and 1 October.   The letter of appeal was sent by telefax and was received at the Court on the same day.           On 5 October 1984 the National Police Board transferred the matter of expulsion to the Government with a request that the applicant be expelled according to Section 47 of the Aliens Act.           On 8 October the Under-Secretary of the competent Ministry ordered that a hearing pursuant to Section 53 para. 1 of the Aliens Act be held before the Administrative Court of Appeal.           On 11 October 1984 the Administrative Court of Appeal held a hearing in camera and, on 12 October, it delivered judgment rejecting the appeal against the decision of 1 October with the following reasons:           "As the National Police Board has found there are probable         causes that (the applicant) will be expelled under         Section 47 of the Aliens Act.   It can further be feared         that he will evade or engage in criminal activities here.         Accordingly, there is reason for taking him into custody.         As a result of what has been established in the case         there must also be considered to be extraordinary         reasons for keeping (the applicant) in custody."           As regards the decision of the National Police Board of 18 September, the Court noted that the decision was not valid any longer and should not lead to any further measures.           The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), but withdrew his appeal when the matter of his expulsion was referred to the Government.   The Supreme Administrative Court struck the case off its list on 4 December 1984.           In the meantime, on 15 October 1984, the responsible Minister, Mrs Anita Gradin, decided that the custody of the applicant should continue.   A similar decision was taken on 26 October 1984, following a hearing before the Stockholm District Court on 25 October.           On 6 November 1984 the Stockholm District Court held a hearing pursuant to Section 53 para. 2 of the Aliens Act.           On 12 November 1984, the then responsible Minister, Mr.   Sten Wickbom, decided that the applicant's detention should continue.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court requesting that he be released immediately.           On 22 November 1984, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Minister.           In the meantime, on 16 and 20 November 1984, the Stockholm District Court held another hearing.           On 26 November 1984 the responsible Minister decided that the custody of the applicant should continue.           On 28 November 1984, the National Board of Immigration, in a letter to the Government, stated that the applicant could not be expelled to Turkey.           On 5 December 1984 a further hearing was held before the Stockholm District Court.           On 10 December 1984 the Government decided to expel the applicant.   However, he was permitted to remain in Sweden on the ground that he might be subjected to political persecution if expelled to Turkey.   Consequently the applicant was released. However, a duty of regular reporting and restrictions as to travelling as well as a prohibition to change domicile and work were imposed on him.           The rules regarding the enforcement of expulsion orders are contained inter alia in Sections 77, 78 and 81 of the Aliens Act. They provide as follows:           Section 77:   "When a refusal-of-entry or an expulsion         order is put into effect, the alien may not be sent to a         country where he risks political persecution.   Nor may the         alien be sent to a country where he is not safeguarded         against being sent on to a country where he risks such         persecution."           Section 78: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 77,         an alien may be sent to a country as referred to in that         Section if he cannot be sent to any other country and if he         has shown, by committing a particularly grave criminal         offence, that public order and security would be seriously         endangered by his being allowed to remain in this country,         and if the persecution which he is liable to suffer in that         country does not involve danger to his life and is not of         a particularly grave nature in any other respect.           If an alien has engaged, in Sweden or elsewhere, in         activities endangering the national security of Sweden, and         if there is reason to suppose that he would continue to         engage in such activities in this country, he may be sent         to a country as referred to in Section 77 if he cannot be         sent to any other country."         Section 81: "An alien who is refused entry shall be sent         to the country from which he entered into Sweden.   An alien         who is expelled shall be sent to his home country.   If the         alien's home country cannot be ascertained, he shall be         sent to the country from which he entered into Sweden.           If the decision cannot be put into effect in the manner         indicated in paragraph one or if there are other special         reasons why it should not thus be put into effect, the         alien may be sent to the country which is considered         most appropriate.           Notwithstanding cf. paragraphs one and two, an alien coming         to Sweden from one of the other Nordic countries may be sent         to one of those countries in keeping with an agreement         entered into by the Government together with the said         countries."     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that he has been the victim of violations of Article 5 paras. 1 (f), 3 and 4, Article 6 paras. 2 and 3 (d) and Article 14 of the Convention.   He also claims compensation under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention.   1.       The applicant submits that it is a violation of the Convention that the same authority is empowered to decide whether its own decision should be upheld.   He refers to the decision of the National Police Board of 1 October 1984, and he maintains that the absence of a hearing before the Stockholm District Court prior to that decision was contrary to Section 57 of the Aliens Act.   2.       The applicant submits that the hearing before the National Police Board was a nullity and in breach of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention, in particular in view of the manner in which the official counsel dominated the hearing.   3.       The applicant alleges that the National Police Board has deliberately infringed Sections 57 and 60 of the Aliens Act and that he has therefore not had a substantial examination of the question of his custody.   This is alleged to constitute a breach of the Convention.   4.       The applicant submits that in connection with the investigation of the matter he has requested the hearing of certain witnesses, but this has been refused.   It is alleged that this is a breach of Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention.   5.       The applicant complains that it took eleven days before the Administrative Court of Appeal delivered judgment in the case of his deprivation of liberty.   The applicant submits that this is a breach of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.   6.       The applicant further complains that the manner in which the police authority has dealt with the case and the procedure at the hearing before the matter was transferred to the Government constitute breaches of Article 5 para. 1, sub-para. f and paras. 3 and 4 of the Convention.   The applicant refers to the fact that a reason for his continued custody was a risk of continued criminal activity.   Since this was so, the applicant maintains that the provisions in the Convention concerning individuals suspected of a criminal offence should apply.   7.       The applicant also alleges that he has been discriminated against on account of his national origin and political opinions in breach of Article 14 of the Convention.   8.       As regards Article 5 para. 1 (f) the applicant submits that he has been in custody from 18 September to 10 December 1984 although it must have been obvious to the Government that he could not be expelled to his home country.   Accordingly there could never have existed any probable cause for expulsion.   The applicant moreover submits that his custody was unlawful.   Article 5 requires that the deprivation of liberty is in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and that it occurs as part of the procedure for expulsion.   It is submitted that the aim of the applicant's custody cannot have been his expulsion since it was obvious that he could not be expelled.   9.       The applicant finally claims compensation referring to Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 20 February 1985 and registered on 20 April 1985.           On 4 December 1985 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application limited to the complaints under Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 of the Convention.           The Government's observations were received by letter dated 13 March 1986 and the applicant's observations in reply were received by a letter dated 5 June 1986.           On 13 July 1987 the Commission examined the admissibility of the application.   It decided to adjourn the examination of the case.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES          A.   The Government   1.      Swedish legislation            The basic provisions concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in Sweden are compiled in the 1980 Aliens Act.   As far as is relevant to the applicant's case, the Act defines the conditions on which an alien may be expelled from the country, as well as the criteria to be met before an alien may be taken into custody.   In addition to these substantive provisions, the Act also contains certain procedural rules and rules related to the enforcement of decisions under the Act.             As far as is relevant to the applicant's case, the Act deals with three different categories of questions, i.e. the question of expulsion, the question of coercive measures and the question of enforcement.   Although to some extent the same procedural rules apply to the handling of the three questions, there are differences that need to be observed.   For this reason, and since the applicant has mixed them up in a manner that is not only misleading but also partly inaccurate, the Government will deal separately with the three categories of questions.           1.1      Provisions concerning expulsion           Under Section 47 of the Act, an alien may be expelled under certain circumstances specified in Section 30.   According to the travaux préparatoires, the purpose of these provisions was to reduce the risk of terrorist activities in the country by taking measures against a very limited group of aliens belonging to, or working for, organisations that by previous actions had engaged in a systematic use of violence, threats of coercion for the purpose of achieving political goals.   Moreover, it was underlined, and it is also indicated by the wording of Section 30, para. 1, that for an alien to be subject to these provisions, it is not enough that he belongs to such an organisation, but there also have to be grounds for assuming that he himself has previously taken part in terrorist activities or is under suspicion of such activities, or that by holding a leading position or otherwise, he plays a rather active role in the activities of the organisation.           A decision under Section 47 of the Act is to be taken by the Government.   Before any such decision is taken, there shall be a hearing (Section 47 para. 2).   Unless there are special reasons against it, the hearing shall be held before the District Court of Stockholm (Section 57 para. 2).   At the hearing a careful investigation shall be carried out of the circumstances which may have a bearing on the determination of the issue of expulsion, and the alien shall be given an opportunity of stating his position and of commenting on the circumstances invoked in the matter (Section 60 para. 1).           1.2      Provisions concerning coercive measures           Under the provisions laid down in Section 50 of the Act, an alien may be detained if there is probable cause for expulsion pursuant to Section 47.   According to the same section, a detention order is to be taken by the authority dealing with the question of expulsion.           In case the matter is before the Government, however, the responsible Minister may take a decision on detention (Section 50 para. 3).           Unless there are extraordinary reasons, an alien may not, prior to an expulsion order, be detained for more than two weeks (Section 53 para. 1).   Furthermore, no such detention order shall be valid for more than two weeks from the date of issue, and any decision concerning detention in excess of two weeks shall be preceded by a hearing.           As regards such a hearing, most of the procedural rules governing the hearing in an expulsion matter, among them those contained in Section 59 and Section 60 para. 1, are equally applicable.   However, there are some differences, and the Government in particular point out the following.   As has been stated above, the hearing in cases concerning expulsion should in general be held before the District Court of Stockholm.   A hearing in a matter concerning the detention of an alien, on the other hand, should in general, according to Section 57 para. 1, be held before the authority dealing with the matter.   Moreover, while the same section for certain cases provides for a possibility to have this hearing held before another authority or court, no such possibility is provided for in case the matter is dealt with by a police authority.           1.3      Provisions concerning enforcement           Basic provisions concerning the enforcement of an expulsion order relevant to the applicant's case are contained in Sections 73 and 77 of the Act.   In the present context, only a few remarks need to be made in respect of these provisions.   In the Act, the circumstances relevant to the question of enforcement are carefully separated from, and accordingly have no bearing on, the question of the expulsion as such.   This is also explicitly observed in the travaux préparatoires by a statement according to which, when the necessary conditions are met, an expulsion order should be issued even in case enforcement would be excluded on the ground that the alien would qualify for the status of refugee.           1.4      Appeals against detention orders           According to Section 67 para. 1 of the Act, an order under Section 50 for the detention or continuing detention of an alien may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.    A decision by this Court in respect of such an order may, under Sections 33 and 34 of the 1971 Act on Administrative Procedure (förvaltnings- processlagen), be brought before the Supreme Administrative Court.           In case an order for the detention or continuing detention of an alien has been issued by the responsible Minister in accordance with Section 50 para. 3 of the 1980 Act, the matter may also be brought before the Supreme Administrative Court (Section 67 para. 3). In such a case, leave to appeal is not required.           2.    The Admissibility           The Government have no objection to make under Article 26 of the Convention.           However, with reference to what is submitted below, the Government submit that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.           3.    The Merits           3.1      Article 5 para. 1           The Government observe that Article 5 para. 1 does not guarantee any substantive rights in respect of the expulsion as such of an alien.   Furthermore, as to the deprivation of liberty, the requirements of this Article are met when a decision to this effect is taken in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, is lawful and is taken with a view to deportation or extradition.   In this context, the notions "prescribed by law" and "lawful" could only be viewed as referring to the relevant domestic law.           3.1.1    A procedure "prescribed by law"           The basic procedural rules to be followed in a matter concerning the deprivation of liberty have been outlined above.   As follows from the facts, every decision in respect of the custody of the applicant was taken by the authority competent under Section 50 para. 1 of the Aliens Act and, when required under Section 53 para. 2 of the Act, only upon the completion of a hearing.   As regards the hearings, there is, save for the allegations made by the applicant, nothing to indicate that they were not properly carried out in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.           Moreover, for the following reasons, the Government submit that the allegations made by the applicant expose a total lack of merits.           Although this already seems to have been observed by the Secretariat of the Commission, the Government would firstly clarify that the applicant's suggestion, that the hearing of 28 September 1984 should have been held before the District Court of Stockholm rather than the National Police Board, is built on a misconception of Section 57 of the Act.   The scope of paragraph 2 of this Section is explicitly limited to proceedings concerning refusal-of-entry cases coming under Section 30 or expulsion cases coming under Section 47 or 48 of the Act.   The hearing of 28 September 1984 was held in a matter concerning custody of the applicant under Section 53 of the Act.   Such a hearing shall, according to the main rule in Section 57 para. 1, be held before the authority dealing with the question, ie. in the present case the National Police Board.           The applicant further submits that the manner in which the hearing of 28 September 1984 was formally conducted was such as to render the hearing "a nullity".   The thrust of this allegation seems to be the conception that the police officer appointed to represent the public pursued his mission in a very active manner, whereas the official presiding at the hearing played a very passive role.   The Government observe that there is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the applicant was not given a fair opportunity of presenting his case.   Moreover, there is no legal provision governing this formal aspect of the hearing.   Accordingly, even assuming that the hearing was conducted in the way suggested by the applicant, this does not justify the conclusion that the proceedings were not carried out "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".           The applicant also alleges that nothing of relevance to the matter was dealt with at the hearing.   In the Government's view, this allegation is obviously unfounded.   Thus, some of the categories of questions referred to by the applicant, for the purpose of substantiating the allegation, in the Government's opinion would appear to turn on the very core of the matter.   Among the questions thus referred to are for instance some concerning group-belonging and other personal circumstances of the applicant.   As appears from Section 30 and Section 50 para. 1 of the Aliens Act, such questions are indeed crucial for the determination of whether the applicant should be kept in custody.   It should also be mentioned that the applicant's legal representative was free to comment on the matter at the hearing, which lasted for about one hour.   There is nothing to indicate that the applicant, or his legal representative, at any time during the hearing expressed any views in respect of the manner in which the hearing was being conducted.          In this context, the Government would like to correct another misleading statement by the applicant.   According to the applicant, the National Police Board in respect of its decision of 1 October 1984, prior to which the hearing now in question was held, was supposed to reconsider the correctness of its own decision of 18 September 1984.   This is not correct.   The issue before the Board in respect of the decision of 1 October 1984 was instead whether at that time the circumstances were still such as to require that the applicant be kept in custody.   It should be added that the applicant could have had the decision of 18 September 1984 reviewed by the Administrative Court of Appeal, but that he did not avail himself of this opportunity until the decision, by being superseded by the one of 1 October 1984, had lost its legal force.          In view hereof, the Government submit that there is nothing in the complaint to even remotely indicate that the proceedings were not properly carried out in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.             3.1.2   A "lawful" detention           The thrust of this part of the complaint seems to be that, since the decision of expulsion could not be expected to be enforced, there was no legal ground for keeping the applicant in custody.   For the following reasons, the Government submit that this reasoning is built on a misconception of the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act.           The legal grounds for taking an alien into custody are set forth in Section 50 para. 1 of the Act.   As regards an expulsion matter, and as far as is relevant to the applicant's case, two conditions must be met; there has to be probable cause for expulsion and the circumstances need to be such as to warrant a fear that the alien would evade or engage in criminal activities.           As to the first condition, the plain wording of the text, as well as the explicit reference to the Sections concerning expulsion and the absence of any reference to those dealing with enforcement, makes it perfectly clear that no more is required than a finding that there is probable cause for an expulsion order under Section 47.   This fact alone yields the inevitable conclusion that in this context the question of whether a possible expulsion order could ultimately be enforced is of no relevance.   This is made even more apparent by the fact that in this Section, as elsewhere in the Act, a clear distinction is made between questions of expulsion and those concerning enforcement.   Consequently, a detention order in an expulsion matter is, and remains, consistent with this Section as long as the circumstances are such as to justify the assumption that an expulsion order will ultimately be issued in the matter.   In the applicant's case, it is not even alleged that this requirement was not met.           Moreover, an expulsion order under Section 47 is of great importance from a procedural point of view, even if the decision cannot be enforced immediately.   Such a decision can justify certain coercive measures, and the question of enforcement of the decision can be raised at any time.           Furthermore, even assuming that Section 50 of the Act could be construed so as to exclude the possibility of keeping an alien in custody once it has been established that a possible expulsion order could not be enforced, there is nothing to suggest that Section 50 of the Act was not, nevertheless, complied with.           The Government recall that the decision not to enforce the expulsion order for the time being was taken on 10 December 1984 and that the applicant was then promptly released.   It appears from Sections 77, 78 and 81 of the Act that a number of delicate issues need to be elaborately considered before any definite position could be taken as regards the question of enforcement.   In the applicant's case, some of these issues were closely related, or even identical, to those that needed to be considered in the expulsion matter as such. In respect of these issues, therefore, it is most likely, and there is nothing to suggest anything to the contrary, that no final view could have been reasonably foreseen in the possible enforcement matter before the action had proceeded so far as to allow a determination of the question of expulsion.   In respect of the latter question, it is not even alleged by the applicant that a decision could have been reached prior to 10 December 1984.           In this context, the Government note the applicant's contention that, in view of the written statement submitted by the National Board of Immigration on 28 November 1984, such a conclusion was inevitable at least as of that date.   The Government submit that the opinion expressed by the Board has no binding effect in respect of the final determination of the question and that, therefore, no conclusive inference could be drawn from such a statement. Furthermore, the Board's statement was limited to expressing the opinion that, under Section 77 of the Aliens Act, the applicant could not be sent to Turkey or to a country where he could run a risk of being sent to Turkey.   As appears from Sections 78 and 81 of the Act, there were still other questions to be considered before it could be concluded that an expulsion order should not be carried out.           The other condition that must be met according to Section 50 of the Act before an alien can be taken into custody is that there are good grounds for assuming that he would evade or engage in criminal activities.   In the applicant's case, the decisions of 18 September and 1 October 1984 were based only on the assumption that he might evade, whereas the other, subsequent decisions were based also on the additional ground that it could be feared that he would engage in criminal activities.           As regards the assumption that the applicant would engage in criminal activities, no other circumstances seem to have been invoked in support of the complaint than the fact that the prosecutor decided not to bring a criminal charge against the applicant.   The Government observe that there is no requirement under Section 50 of the Act that the deprivation of liberty be preceded by the bringing of a criminal charge against the alien.   The fact that the prosecutor did not consider that the criminal charge could successfully be brought does not as such mean that the requirement of reasonable fear in Section 50 of the Act could not, nevertheless, be met.   Finally, the decision of the prosecutor merely concerned suspicions of certain crimes in the past, whereas the question in the matter of custody was whether, in view of what was known of the applicant, there was a risk that he might engage in criminal activities in the future.           As regards the assumption that the applicant would evade, the thrust of the applicant's allegation is that, since the decision of expulsion could not be expected to be enforced, there was nothing to evade from.   The Government submit that this reasoning is built on a misconception of Section 50 of the Act and partly supported by an incorrect statement of the facts.           For this requirement to be met, it is enough that there is cause for fearing that the alien will evade.   Accordingly, and contrary to what has been suggested by the applicant, there is no additional requirement that the evasion be for the exclusive purpose of avoiding the enforcement of an expulsion order.   Consequently, this provision is equally applicable if, for instance, it could be feared that an alien by evading would avoid that the question of his expulsion as such be properly considered and determined.           In this context, the Government draw the Commission's attention to the fact that the applicant, as far as the present issue is concerned, has consistently misrepresented the relevant decisions. Thus, in presenting the grounds for the decision of the National Police Board of 18 September 1984 and the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal of 12 October 1984, the applicant has alleged that one of the grounds was the fear that the applicant would "evade from the enforcement" of a possible expulsion order.   The fact is, however, that in this respect neither the decision, nor the judgment was based on anything else than the fear that the applicant would "evade".           In view of the above, the Government submit that there is nothing in the complaint to substantiate an allegation that the decisions concerning the custody of the applicant were not properly taken in accordance with the requirements laid down in Sections 50 and 53 of the Aliens Act.             3.1.3    With a view to deportation or extradition           In the Government's view, for this condition to be met, no more is required than a finding that an action has been taken with a view to arriving at a decision of deportation or extradition. Therefore, and since it is not even questioned by the applicant that such an action was in fact being taken against him, the Government submit that this requirement of Article 5 para. 1 was clearly met.           Furthermore, even wh