CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 décembre 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 19899/92                       by Enrique Jose SAENZ VANEGAS                       against Cyprus           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 8 December 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 21 April 1992 by Enrique Jose SAENZ VANEGAS against Cyprus and registered on 24 April 1992 under file No. 19899/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:       THE FACTS         The applicant is a citizen of Nicaragua, born in 1962. He is a medical doctor residing in Nicosia. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Loukis Papaphilippou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.         The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.          The applicant and his wife, a Cypriot citizen, married in Nicaragua in 1985. The applicant's wife gave birth to a child in 1986. The applicant came to Cyprus in summer 1987. He was granted a residence and work permit in 1990. He was employed as medical doctor at the District Hospitals of Larnaca and Limasol.         At the request of the applicant's wife, the district court of Limasol issued on 12 November 1991 an order against the applicant prohibiting him from taking the child out of Cyprus.         On 7 January 1992 the applicant applied for an extension of his residence and work permit. His request was rejected on 17 March 1992 by the Migration Department of the Ministry of Interior and the applicant was ordered to leave Cyprus immediately.         On 8 April 1992 the above decision of the Ministry was communicated to the Aliens' Police Department who was asked to take the necessary action with a view to the applicant's expulsion. On 9 April 1992 the applicant was requested to present himself to the Aliens' Police. The applicant refused to leave Cyprus.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of the expulsion order issued against him. He alleges that this order is a discriminatory and degrading treatment and that it violates his rights to security, to respect for his family life and to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The applicant invokes Articles 3, 5, 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 21 April 1992. The applicant requested the Commission to take action in order to stay the execution of the expulsion order.         On 22 April 1992 the President of the Commission decided not to indicate to the Government of Cyprus pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, the measure suggested by the applicant.         The application was registered on 24 April 1992.           On 4 June 1992 the member of the Commission designated as Rapporteur requested information by the respondent Government on the facts of the case. The Government submitted the information requested on 13 July 1992. The applicant submitted comments in reply on 3 August 1992.     THE LAW         The applicant complains of the expulsion order issued against him and alleges that this order is contrary to Articles 3, 5, 8, 12 and 14 (Art. 3, 5, 8, 12, 14) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol N° 1 (P1-1).         However, the Commission recalls that according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it can only deal with an application after the exhaustion of domestic remedies according to the generally recognized rules of international law. The Commission observes that in the present case the applicant failed to challenge the expulsion order before the Supreme Court of Cyprus and has not therefore exhausted the domestic remedies available under Cypriot law. Moreover, the Commission finds that the examination of the case does not disclose any particular circumstance which could absolve the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal.         It follows that the applicant has not complied with the obligation as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INDAMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)