CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 23 janvier 1997

.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. 32156/96                       by Mrs AG and Mr K                       against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 23 January 1997, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 2 July 1996 by Mrs AG and Mr K against Sweden and registered on 5 July 1996 under file No. 32156/96;       Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 11 November 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 25 November 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The first applicant (Mrs AG) is an Iranian citizen, born in 1970. The second applicant (Mr K; her husband) is an Iranian and Swedish citizen, born in 1964. Both applicants are resident at Kista in Sweden. They are represented by Mr. Kjell Jönsson, a lawyer in Stockholm.         Mrs AG arrived in Sweden on 27 May 1993, having been granted a residence permit until 8 September 1993 due to her family connection to her then husband Mr M, another Iranian apparently holding a permanent residence permit in Sweden. On 19 July 1993 she requested asylum, alternatively a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, stating that her and M's relationship had ceased to exist. She claimed to be a sympathiser of the banned Mojaheddin opposition movement in Iran. In 1990 she had also been arrested and detained for two months after her brothers had left Iran.         In June 1994 Mrs AG met Mr K, a Swedish citizen since 1993. He had previously been recognised as a quota refugee by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("the UNHCR") and by Sweden, apparently on account of having been active in the military faction of the Mojaheddin and having been tortured in Iran.         On 13 July 1994 the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) rejected Mrs AG's request for asylum or a residence permit. It noted discrepancies in the accounts of her and one of her brother's political activities in Iran as well as in their accounts of the Iranian authorities' interest in the two. The Board also noted that Mrs AG had possessed a valid Iranian passport on arrival in Sweden. It therefore found that it had not been shown that she would be wanted or otherwise be of any particular interest to the Iranian regime. The alleged risk of persecution had therefore been exaggerated.         In August 1994 Mrs AG appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden), requesting that her case be sent back to the National Immigration Board for new consideration. She referred, inter alia, to the fact that its decision had not been made by those of its officials who had attended its oral hearing. Nor had the Board indicated in what respect her submissions had been contradictory. It had also based itself on a presentation of facts which was clearly not in line with the information recorded in writing as a result of the asylum interviews.         In October 1994 the applicants started a relationship. In March 1995 they moved together and on 10 May 1995 they married.         On 19 May 1995 Mrs AG supplemented her appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board, principally referring to her marriage to Mr K. Her having met Mr K had ended her relationship with Mr M. She also referred to her family connection to her siblings in Sweden. Finally, she invoked a report of 23 March 1995 by an expert in psychiatry concluding that she was suffering from a depressive neurosis related to the circumstances in Iran which had forced her into exile.         On 29 February 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected Mrs AG's appeal. It noted that, in 1990, her older brother in Sweden had requested that his younger siblings in Iran be granted residence permits in Sweden, as he had become the head of the family after their father's death. This request had been rejected in December 1990. In 1992 Mrs AG had requested and been granted a short-term residence permit on account of her connection to her then husband Mr M. No allegations of ill-treatment in Iran had been made to the Swedish authorities until their relationship had ended. The Board concluded that Mrs AG's allegations in support of her asylum request were not credible.         The Board nevertheless found it evident that Mrs AG would have been granted a temporary residence permit in Sweden in view of her relationship with Mr K, had she requested such a permit from abroad. A precondition for the issuing of such a permit was normally that the alien could present a valid passport. Mrs AG's Iranian passport had ceased to be valid on 12 October 1995. Before deciding whether or not to grant her a residence permit the Board therefore invited her to present a valid Iranian passport within two months.         In submissions of 7 March 1996 Mrs AG stated that mainly because of her mental state she would not dare to present herself at the Iranian Embassy in order to request a new passport. It was known that Iranians could be heavily pressured to cooperate with the regime. The Swedish Security Police (Säkerhetspolisen) had confirmed that threats against relatives in Iran were common as well as refugee espionage. Mrs AG therefore wanted to avoid having to answer questions concerning herself and Mr K. She requested that the Board would exceptionally not require her to present a valid passport and instead consider granting her an alien's passport.         On 27 March 1996 the Board stated that it would, for the time being, not grant Mrs AG an exception to the passport requirement.         In submissions of 26 and 29 April 1996 Mrs AG stated that she had been unable to overcome her fear of presenting herself at the Iranian Embassy and that this requirement of the Board would, if upheld, subject her to inhuman treatment. The applicants had tried to find out about the passport procedure at the Embassy. Apparently Mrs AG would have to request a new passport. Her husband would have to consent to such a request. Complications could arise because of Mrs AG's previous marriage to Mr M. Her old passport would show that she had been staying in Sweden for a long time without a residence permit. The Embassy would therefore probably realise that she had been requesting asylum. She also invoked a statement by the Swedish Office of the UNHCR dated 12 April 1996, according to which an Iranian runs an inherent risk of being persecuted in Iran solely on the basis of his or her family connection to a recognised refugee from Iran.         On 28 June 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board found no reason to depart from the requirement that Mrs AG should present a valid Iranian passport. The conditions for granting her a Swedish alien's passport had thus not been met.         On 17 July 1996 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected Mrs AG's further request for a residence permit.         In response to a yet further request the Aliens Appeals Board, on 8 November 1996, quashed the expulsion order concerning Mrs AG, granted her refugee status and issued her with a permanent residence permit in Sweden.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants complained that, if expelled to Iran, Mrs AG would be exposed to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment on account of her being Mr K's wife. Having been recognised as a refugee, Mr K was still being considered an enemy of the Iranian regime despite his Swedish citizenship. It was therefore not possible for him to return to Iran with Mrs AG or he would face persecution or death. Finally, the applicants complained about the lack of a court or other effective remedy against the Aliens Appeals Board's decision of 28 June 1996. They invoked Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 2 July 1996 and registered on 5 July 1996.         On 5 July 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the applicants' complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 11 November 1996, after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicants replied on 25 November 1996.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The applicants principally complained that, if expelled to Iran, Mrs AG would be exposed to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment on account of her being Mr K's wife. They invoked Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.         In their observations of 11 November 1996 the respondent Government referred to the Aliens Appeals Board's decision of 8 November 1996. In the light of that decision the application could, in the Government's opinion, be struck off the Commission's list of cases.         In their observations of 25 November 1996 the applicants stated their willingness to withdraw their application.         The Commission notes that the first applicant has now been granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden. In these circumstances it considers that the Convention issue underlying the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.          H.C. KRÜGER                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                            President      to the Commission                     of the Commission