CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 janvier 1992

.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 }  Application No. 18418/91 by Can and Seyhan ALTINKAYA against Sweden     The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 13 January 1992, the following members being present:   MM.S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber G. JÖRUNDSSON A. WEITZEL J.C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS H. DANELIUS Mrs.G.H. THUNE MM.F. MARTINEZ L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS   Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber.   Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 28 March 1991 by Can and Seyhan ALTINKAYA against Sweden and registered on 26 June 1991 under file No. 18418/91;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having regard to the information submitted by the Government on 25 October and the applicants' letter of 28 November 1991;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The first applicant, born in 1964, is a Turkish and the second applicant, born in 1966, is a Swedish citizen.   They are husband and wife and reside at Södertälje. Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. Hans Engström, a lawyer practising at Skärholmen.   The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   The applicants are Syrian-Orthodox Christians.   The first applicant came illegally to Sweden in July 1982.   His Turkish passport has expired, as he has not performed military service.   The second applicant came to Sweden as a child and her family is living in Sweden. Since 1989 the applicants have lived together and in June 1990 they married.   It appears that on 6 December 1990 the Government upheld a previous decision of the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) rejecting the first applicant's request for a residence permit in Sweden.   On 13 March 1991 the National Immigration Board rejected a further request for a residence permit lodged by the first applicant. It further found no reason to suspend the enforcement of the deportation order previously issued with regard to him.     COMPLAINTS   The applicants complained that the first applicant, if returned, will be brought to trial and be imprisoned for desertion as well as possibly killed or persecuted; that, in any case, he will have to perform "two years of hard military service in a Muslim army"; that the applicants will be separated possibly for three years or longer, as the second applicant's family is living in Sweden, does not speak Turkish and would not be granted a residence permit in Turkey.   They invoked Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   On 3 April 1991 the applicants requested the Commission to apply Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure in their case.   This was rejected by the President on the same day.   On 12 September 1991 the Rapporteur, pursuant to Rule 47 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, decided to request further information from the Government. Following two extensions of the time-limit the information was submitted by the Government on 25 October 1991. On 31 October 1991 comments on this information were requested from the applicants.   By letter of 28 November 1991 the applicants stated that they wished to withdraw their application, as the first applicant had been granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden.       REASONS FOR THE DECISION   Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention the Commission notes that the applicants wish to withdraw their application since the first applicant has been granted a permanent residence permit. In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the matter has been resolved. It further considers that no special circumstances affecting the respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention require the further examination of the application under Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.     For the reasons, the Commission, unanimously,     DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber                   (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)