CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 21350/93                       by Teteh Ankrah SOMADO                       against the Netherlands           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 13 October 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO              Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the 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 6 October 1992 by Teteh Ankrah SOMADO against the Netherlands and registered on 9 February 1993 under file No. 21350/93 ;         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 Togolese national, born in 1963 and currently in hiding in the Netherlands. Before the Commission he is represented by J.Th.A. Bos, a lawyer practising in Utrecht, the Netherlands.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant's father, who was the village chief of Z., died in 1984 allegedly as a result of a curse ("juju"). The applicant's elder brother inherited the function of village chief. Since he wished to finish his studies, an uncle of the applicant became interim village chief. When in 1985 the applicant's brother claimed his right to become village chief, he allegedly received several death threats from his uncle and his followers and in 1986 left Togo. At present he is residing in Japan, where he has obtained the status of refugee. Since his brother's departure the applicant was the lawful heir to his father's position. As from 1989 the applicant has allegedly been pressed on several occasions by the village elders to claim his right to become village chief and threatened by his uncle if he would do so. The applicant consistently refused to become village chief and in 1990, holding a valid passport issued in April 1989, he left Togo.         On 24 December 1990 the applicant arrived in Brussels, Belgium, and on 25 December 1990 he travelled to the Netherlands, where on 27 December 1990 he requested the status of refugee and a residence permit.         On 23 April 1992 the applicant was heard by a contact officer of the Ministry of Justice (contactambtenaar van het Ministerie van Justitie). By decision of 12 May 1992 the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the applicant's requests, considering the applicant did not meet the requirements for obtaining the status of refugee and that no circumstances had appeared on the basis of which the applicant could qualify for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.         By letter of 1 July 1992 the applicant's lawyer requested the Deputy Minister of Justice to review (herziening) the decision of 12 May 1992. On 22 July 1992 the applicant was informed that the request for a review was denied suspensive effect in respect of his expulsion from the Netherlands. The review proceedings are still pending.         The applicant's request for a stay of his expulsion was refused on 24 September 1992 by the President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague in injunction proceedings (kort geding). The President considered that there was no reasonable doubt that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the status of refugee. Although the President did not doubt the applicant's allegations, he considered that there were no compelling humanitarian reasons opposing the applicant's expulsion having regard to the fact that the applicant never had expressed the intention to become village chief and that it was not impossible to remain outside the village elders' sphere of influence. The applicant's appeal against this decision is still pending.         By letter of 12 March 1993 the applicant's lawyer requested the Dutch authorities to stay the applicant's expulsion in view of the current unstable political situation in Togo. In this letter the applicant's representative referred to a decision of 15 January 1993 in injunction proceedings in a similar case where the President of the Regional Court had decided to adjourn his decision pending the submission by the Dutch authorities of additional information, from which it should appear that no violation of Article 3 of the Convention would occur if that person would be expelled to Togo.     COMPLAINT         The applicant complains that the Netherlands authorities by expelling him to Togo expose him to a treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.     THE LAW         The applicant complains that his expulsion to Togo will expose him to a treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.         The Commission does not find it necessary to examine whether the applicant has complied with the requirements of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, as the application is in any event manifestly ill- founded for the following reasons.         The Commission recalls its constant case-law according to which no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country, nor a right not to be expelled from a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention (cf. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219). However, the expulsion of a person to a country where there are reasons to believe he will be subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention may raise an issue under that Article. This may be so even if the danger does not emanate from public authorities for whom the receiving State is responsible (No. 12461/86, Dec. 10.12.86, D.R. 51 p. 258).         The Commission notes that the current political situation in Togo may be regarded as unstable. However, in respect of the general situation in Togo, the applicant has not substantiated in which respect his personal situation is any worse than that of the generality of the Togolese population (cf. mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R. Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no 215, p. 37, para. 111). Concerning his personal situation in respect of the pressure exercised by his uncle and the village elders, the Commission recalls that to fall within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity (cf. No. 10142/82, Dec, 8.7.85, D.R. 42 p. 86). Noting that the applicant does not allege that, when expelled, he will be compelled to take up residence in his village, the Commission finds that the mere possibility of being exposed in his village to a certain degree of pressure by either his uncle or the village elders is, in the circumstances of the present case, not in itself sufficient to raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.         It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)