CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 30 octobre 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. 29103/95                       by T.B. and I.G.-A.                       against Denmark           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 30 October 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                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  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            MM     R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV              Mr     M. de SALVIA, 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 12 August 1995 by T.B. and I.G.-A. against Denmark and registered on 8 November 1995 under file No. 29103/95;         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 applicants, mother and daughter, are Armenian citizens, born in 1949 and 1971, respectively. They reside at present in Denmark where they have asked for asylum. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr Helge Nørrung, a lawyer practising in Frederiksberg, Denmark.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.         The applicants came to Denmark on 3 November 1993. They possessed valid passports and a visa for Denmark valid until 3 February 1994, issued by the Danish Embassy in Moscow. Once in Denmark they moved in with a Danish citizen, K.O., whom the first applicant had corresponded with since 1992. In order to secure the applicants' visa for Denmark K.O. had issued a declaration by which he guaranteed financial support for the applicants. However, he withdrew the declaration on 7 January 1994.         On 9 January 1994 the applicants applied for asylum. The first applicant stated in support of her application that she had been critical of the regime in Armenia since her childhood. For this reason her father, who was a former minister for water resources and colonel in the KGB, placed her in a psychiatric hospital for six months in 1969. Subsequently, she became a journalist and commenced writing critical articles about the leaders of the country. Since then she was allegedly harassed and persecuted by the authorities who assaulted her and the second applicant, searched their common apartment and even attempted to kill them.         The second applicant is an artist. She studied at the Jeplemezjan Art College until 1990 when she was admitted to the Yerevan State Institute of Art. She left Armenia together with her mother as she suffered from the harassment against her mother and was likewise assaulted because of her mother's criticism against the regime and also due to her preference for the Russian language. While in Denmark the second applicant married another Armenian asylum seeker. A daughter was born out of this marriage in 1995. Whereas the second applicant and her daughter are still in Denmark it appears that her husband has been deported but managed to apply for asylum in the Netherlands during a transit at Schiphol Airport. Apparently, he is still in the Netherlands.         The applicants' applications were rejected by the Directorate for Aliens (Direktoratet for Udlændinge) on 3 June 1994 as their fears of harassment and persecution were found to be unsubstantiated. The applicants' appeals were rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board (Flygtningenævnet) on 24 May 1995. As regards the first applicant the Board stated, inter alia, as follows:         (Translation)         "A majority of the Board finds that considerable doubts       exist as to whether the applicant has been subjected to the       harassment as explained. The Board finds it of importance       that according to her own statement, the applicant has       primarily been subjected to harassment from one particular       person from the KGB. The applicant has explained in further       details about her critical journalistic engagements after       1990, including criticism vis-à-vis Yerevan's mayor who,       according to the applicant, was shot approximately four       months ago. The applicant who speaks Russian, and who has       only published articles in that language, has worked as a       free-lance journalist for several different newspapers       prior to her departure. The applicant has furthermore       explained that she has reported several violent attacks       from the KGB person in question to the Armenian authorities       which refused to take any further action or delayed the       investigation of the episodes, but that she did not report       the shooting episodes, as explained, as she considered this       to be fruitless.         Although the Board's majority finds that the applicant has       remained faithful to her story on all important points to       which she refers as reasons for the request for asylum, it       does not find her story convincing. It is the majority's       opinion that the applicant's story is to a considerable       extent influenced by her subjective experiences of the more       general state of affairs in Armenia.         In this respect the majority attaches importance to the       fact that, according to the information available to the       Board, it was possible to voice critical opinions in the       written media during the period before the applicant's       departure in the autumn of 1993, and that the newspapers       which published the applicant's articles were legal. The       majority furthermore finds that the applicant did not       experience direct conflicts with the Armenian authorities       although she accused the mayor of corruption, and left with       a valid passport issued on 1 October 1993. The majority is       unable to accept that the passport was obtained by the       payment of several million roubles in bribes. Finally, in       the evaluation of the applicant's story some importance is       attached to the fact that she arrived in November 1993 but       did not apply for asylum until January 1994.         Having regard to this the Board does not find that the       applicant was persecuted when she left Armenia in a way       which could justify the granting of a residence permit       pursuant to section 7 of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven)       or that the applicant upon return to Armenia risks such       persecution."         The second applicant's application was rejected with reference to the decision taken in the first applicant's case and since there were no elements which could substantiate that she herself would run any risk of persecution.         The first applicant subsequently lodged an appeal with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. By decision of 2 August 1995 the Ombudsman rejected the appeal as he found no reason to criticise the decisions taken.         On 12 September 1996 the first applicant requested the Aliens Appeals Board to reopen the case. On 16 September 1997 the Board refused to do so as the applicant had not submitted any relevant new information.     COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain of the fact that the Danish authorities have refused to accept their requests for asylum. They maintain that they will be persecuted by the Armenian authorities if returned to that country and invoke Articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.     THE LAW         The applicants complain that their applications for asylum have been rejected and that they face deportation to Armenia where allegedly they will be subjected to persecution and ill-treatment.         The Commission has first examined the applicants' complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which reads as follows:         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or       degrading treatment or punishment."         The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its Protocols (cf. for example Eur. Court HR, Vilvarajah and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102). However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an asylum seeker may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled (ibid., p. 34, para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment, however, is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).         In the present case the Commission recalls that the applicants came to Denmark in order to visit a man, K.O., with whom the first applicant had corresponded for some time and who had made the necessary financial and visa arrangements in order to allow the applicants to enter the country. Their applications for asylum were not submitted until after K.O. had withdrawn his support. Furthermore, although the first applicant was critical towards the political establishment in Armenia the Commission has not found it established that this prevented her from voicing her opinion or otherwise work as a free-lance journalist.         In these circumstances, the Commission shares the Danish authorities' doubts as to whether the applicants would, on account of their situation as described by them, face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3), if returned to Armenia. Thus, the Commission considers, on the evidence before it concerning the applicants' background and the current situation in Armenia, that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if expelled to that country.         As regards the other Articles invoked by the applicants the Commission has examined their complaints as submitted by them. It finds, however, that the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance of a violation of these Articles.         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.             M. de SALVIA                         S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                            President       to the Commission                    of the Commission