CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 mars 1994

.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. 22978/93                       by Amal KORIEH                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 March 1994, 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                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              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 3 September 1993 by Amal KORIEH against Sweden and registered on 22 November 1993 under file No. 22978/93;         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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant is a Syrian citizen, born in 1961 at Damascus and, presently, a resident of Syria. Before the Commission she is represented by Mr. C.M. Lilienberg, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.         The applicant grew up in Syria and lived there with her parents, sisters and brothers. She commenced her studies at the university in Damascus in 1979. In 1983 she had to leave the university because she was not a member of the Baath Party and refused to become a member. Furthermore, she was informed that the Syrian authorities suspected her of sympathising with the Christian militia and of being against the Syrian regime. She began to work as an agronomist as she thought this would enable her to continue her studies. However, this proved to be impossible and she therefore applied for a scholarship to study in France and a visa. She received both and she left Syria in December 1984 to pursue her studies in France. There she stayed with a brother. She submits that since she left her job in Syria without permission the Syrian authorities issued a prohibition against her leaving the country. However, the applicant was not informed thereof until after she had actually left for France.         In 1986 her parents left Syria and settled in Sweden where they obtained a permanent residence permit. They were later joined by two of their daughters in 1988 and a son in 1990. The latter has not, however, obtained a permanent residence permit yet.         On 3 September 1990 the applicant arrived in Sweden from France on a visa valid until 30 September 1990. On 9 October 1990 she requested asylum. She submitted to the Swedish authorities that she feared being compelled to 15 years' house arrest or similar punishment if returned to Syria, that she would be prohibited from working there and that she would be sentenced to a fine of approximately 300,000 SEK. She also submitted, as a humanitarian consideration, that her parents and siblings were living in Sweden, and that it was an Islamic tradition that an unmarried woman should live with her parents for which reason she would end up in a difficult social situation upon return to Syria.         While the applicant's request for asylum was being considered, her father died on 4 December 1991 of a heart disease and one of her sisters died on 22 November 1992 of a liver disease.         On 21 February 1992 the National Immigration Board (Statens Invandrarverk, hereafter "SIV") rejected the applicant's request for asylum. SIV considered that the circumstances as described by the applicant did not disclose that the requirements for obtaining status as a refugee in accordance with Chapter 3, section 1, subsections 1 and 3, of the Aliens Act (utlänningslagen) were fulfilled. SIV stated furthermore that the applicant's family situation was not of such a character that it could constitute a valid reason for granting her a residence permit. The applicant was refused leave to return to Sweden before 1 March 1994 without prior permission from SIV.         The applicant appealed against the decision to the Aliens Board (utlänningsnämnden) and referred to the period of time she had stayed in Sweden and to the fact that a brother had in the meanwhile been granted a permanent residence permit which increased her attachment to Sweden. She also submitted that the death of her father and her sister was yet another humanitarian reason to let her stay in Sweden.         However, the Aliens Board upheld the decision of SIV on 22 March 1993. The applicant could not be regarded as a refugee within the meaning of the Aliens Act. Furthermore, the attachment to her family or other humanitarian grounds were not sufficient to obtain a residence permit. The applicant has returned to Syria.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains that her expulsion from Sweden violated her right to respect for her family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.         She claims that she went to Sweden to join her family. In Syria it is a tradition that women live with the parents until their marriage. She has no family in Syria and she maintains that it is impossible for her family to return to that country.   THE LAW         The applicant complains that by expelling her from Sweden the Swedish authorities have violated her right to respect for her family life. She invokes Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which provides as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family       life, his home and his correspondence.         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with the       exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law       and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of       national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the       country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection       of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and       freedoms of others."         The Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee a right to enter or reside in a particular country. However, the Commission has held that, in view of the right to respect for family life ensured by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the exclusion of a person from a country in which his or her close relatives reside may raise an issue under this provision of the Convention (cf., for example, No. 13654/88, Dec. 8.9.88, D.R. 57 p. 287).         In such circumstances the Commission first examines whether such a degree of dependency existed between the applicant and her relatives as to give rise to the protection envisaged by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.         The Commission notes that the applicant lived with her family in Damascus until 1984 and again in Sweden from 1990 until she was expelled in 1993. During the applicant's stay in France from 1984 to 1990 she lived with one of her brothers.         In these circumstances, the Commission would not exclude that there was a family life between the applicant and her family within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention. Consequently, the applicant's expulsion may be considered as an interference with her right to respect for family life.         The question which remains to be examined is whether this interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, i.e. whether it was in accordance with law, had a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve the aforesaid aim.         The Commission recalls that the decision of the Swedish authorities not to grant the applicant a residence permit and to expel her was taken in accordance with the Swedish Aliens Act which inter alia aims at regulating the right of aliens to take up residence in the country.         Having regard to the close connection between the policy of regulating immigration and considerations pertaining to the economic well-being of the country and the public order, the Commission considers that the decision not to grant the applicant asylum and to expel her was taken in pursuit of legitimate aims within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention, i.e. the economic well-being of the country and the prevention of disorder.         What remains is accordingly to examine whether the interference was "necessary". In this connection the Commission recalls, as already indicated above, that the Convention does not in principle prohibit the Contracting States from regulating the entry and length of the stay of aliens, and the Commission's function is not to pass judgment on immigration or residence policies as such. It only has to examine the interference complained of and to weigh the legitimate aims pursued against the seriousness of the interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life (cf. Eur Court H.R., Berrehab judgment of 8 March 1985, Series A no. 138, p. 16, para. 29).         In the present case the Commission recalls that the applicant, at the age of 23, left her family home in Syria in order to pursue her studies in France. She remained there for six years before joining her parents who had moved to Sweden in the meantime. Furthermore, when she applied for asylum in Sweden her application did not concern a person who already lived there lawfully, but an alien seeking a permanent residence permit for the first time. In such circumstances the Commission does not consider the applicant's contention of a difficult social status in Syria as a unmarried woman to carry any decisive weight. Furthermore, the applicant's wish to reside permanently in Sweden was not based on any legitimate expectations. As regards the extent of the interference, the Commission also notes that the applicant is now 32 years old, having left the family home already in 1984, and that she had managed to live without her parents, for six years in France.         In these circumstances the Commission finds that respect for the applicant's family life does not outweigh the general interest of the economic well-being of the country and the prevention of disorder. The interference with the applicant's right under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention was therefore justified under para. 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         If follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission by a majority         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                                 (S. TRECHSEL)