CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 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. 34919/97                       by Arpad SETALO                       against Germany           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 8 December 1996 by Arpad Setalo against Germany and registered on 14 February 1997 under file No. 34919/97;         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, a citizen of former Yugoslavia born in 1969, is a heating mechanic residing at Villingen-Schwenningen in Germany.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant, who was born in Germany, spent the first 13 years of his life in Germany.   In 1982 he travelled with his parents to Yugoslavia where he lived for eight years.   While in Yugoslavia, the applicant completed his schooling, trained as a heating mechanic, and spent one year in military service.         In 1991 the applicant returned to Germany where he found employment and was granted a tolerance authorisation (Duldung) in view of the civil war in former Yugoslavia.         In 1992 the applicant filed a request for a residence authorisation (Aufenthaltserlaubnis) in Germany, claiming that, if he returned to former Yugoslavia, there was a danger that he would be obliged to perform military service.   The request was refused by the Villingen-Schweningen municipality on 8 January 1993.         The applicant's subsequent action was dismissed on 19 September 1995 by the Freiburg Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) as the applicant had entered Germany in 1991 without a visa.   The decision stated that the applicant could file a further appeal with the Baden- Württemberg Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).         It appears that the applicant has meanwhile been requested to leave Germany.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains, without reference to a particular Convention provision, of his forced return to former Yugoslavia.   He submits that he has had hardly anything to do with the Serb language; that the people in former Yugoslavia are completely alien to him; that he would not find employment there; and that he experiences his expulsion as discrimination.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 8 December 1996.         On 2 January 1997 the Acting President decided not to apply Rule 36 of the Convention.         The application was registered on 14 February 1997.     THE LAW         The applicant complains, without reference to a particular Convention provision, of his forced return to former Yugoslavia.   He submits that he has had hardly anything to do with the Serb language; that the people in former Yugoslavia are completely alien to him; that he would not find employment there; and that he experiences his expulsion as discrimination.         The Commission has examined these complaints under Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention.         Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention states:         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading       treatment or punishment."         Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention states, insofar as relevant:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and       family life ...         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."         Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law.         In the present case, the applicant has not shown that he filed an appeal against the decision of the Freiburg Administrative Court of 19 September 1995.   He has not shown either that in last resort he obtained, by means of a constitutional complaint, a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on the complaints he is now raising before the Commission.         The applicant has not therefore exhausted the remedies available to him under German law according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, and his application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber