CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 septembre 1993

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 21649/93                            D. and Others (no. 2)                                   against                                   Sweden                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 8 September 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     THE PARTIES       (paras. 1 - 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   II.    SUMMARY OF THE FACTS       (paras. 4 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   III.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION       (paras. 12 - 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   IV.    THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 19 - 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   APPENDIX:   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4   I.    THE PARTIES   1.     The present Report, which was drawn up in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, concerns the application brought by Mr. D. and Others against Sweden.   2.     The applicants are husband, wife and daughter, all Peruvian citizens born in 1965, 1965 and 1991, respectively. Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. Sten De Geer, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.   3.     The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.     The facts of the case as submitted at the admissibility stage are set out in the Commission's decision of 8 July 1993 as to the admissibility of the application (see the attached Appendix). They may be summarised as follows:   5.     The applicants' requests for asylum in Sweden were rejected by the Government on 8 July 1992 and the applicants were ordered to be expelled to Peru.   6.     The applicants' subsequent request for residence permits on humanitarian grounds was rejected by the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) on 23 March 1993.   7.     On 16 April 1993 the Board stayed execution of its decision pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Commission.   8.     Before the Commission the applicants complained that, if returned to Peru, the first applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention as a result of previous torture experiences in Peru and his present mental state.   They further complained that the absence of a right to appeal against the decision of the National Immigration Board violated Article 13 of the Convention.   9.     The application having been declared admissible by the Commission on 8 July 1993, the Government granted the applicants permanent residence permits in Sweden on 12 August 1993.   10.    The Government submit that in view of the granting of residence permits, the applicants can no longer be considered victims of any of the alleged violations of the Convention.   11.    The applicants state that they do not wish to withdraw their application, but wish to reach a friendly settlement between the parties.   III.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   12.    The application was introduced on 23 March 1993 and registered on 8 April 1993.   13.    On 8 April 1993 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to return the applicants to Peru until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application.   14.    On 12 May 1993 the Commission decided to prolong the indication under Rule 36 until 9 July 1993.   15.    Following an extension of the time-limit the Government's observations were submitted on 11 May 1993. The applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 3 June 1993.   16.    On 8 July 1993 the Commission declared the application admissible and decided to request further observations from the parties in regard to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It also prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until further notice.   17.    On 8 September 1993 the Commission granted legal aid to the applicants.   18.    On 8 September 1993 the Commission adopted the present Report, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA   IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   19.    According to the constant case-law of the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights an applicant who obtains adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the Convention cannot, or cannot any longer, claim to be a "victim" of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention (cf. for example No. 9320/81, Dec. 15.3.84, D.R. 36 p. 24, No. 10259/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 170, No. 12719/87, Dec. 3.5.88, D.R. 56 p. 237 and Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).   20.    The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicants have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden.   21.    In these circumstances the Commission considers that the applicants have obtained adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violations of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention.   22.    The Commission concludes therefore that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. It further finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination thereof.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES;         ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT; and         DECIDES TO SEND THE REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS for       information, to send it also to the parties and to publish it.   Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)