N.A. v. SWITZERLAND
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27020/95
by N. A.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 May 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 15 February 1995
by N. A. against Switzerland and registered on 10 April 1995 under file
No. 27020/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
Facts
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant, a Turkish citizen born in 1968, is a salesman
residing at Wohlen in Switzerland.
I.
Until 1992 the applicant lived in Turkey. According to his
subsequent submissions before the Swiss authorities, as from 1991 he
sympathised with the Youth Committee of the Populist Labour Party, the
HEP, in Piskülen. In 1992 he stopped working as a shop assistant as
soldiers suspected him and his brother of supporting the Kurdish
Workers Party, the PKK, in the mountains.
In September 1992, following the death of the journalist M.A.,
the applicant became a member of a four person organisational committee
organising a demonstration. Shortly after the demonstration commenced,
the police intervened and arrested two of the organisers.
As a result, the applicant fled together with other persons into
the mountains where he hid until November 1992. During this period,
the police frequently looked for him at his home and molested his
parents.
In November 1992 the applicant travelled to Istanbul for health
reasons, and on 4 December 1992 he left Turkey.
II.
On 7 December 1992 the applicant entered Switzerland where he
applied for asylum.
The applicant was heard as to his request for asylum on
30 December 1992 and on 18 May 1993. On 27 July 1993 the Swiss
authorities requested the Swiss representation in Ankara in Turkey to
obtain information on certain issues concerning the applicant's request
for asylum.
On 11 April 1994 the Federal Office for Refugees (Bundesamt für
Flüchtlinge) dismissed the applicant's request for asylum. In its
decision, the Office found that the applicant's description of the
facts did not appear credible, inter alia as he had contradicted
himself.
Thus, while he had stated that he had never possessed a passport
in Turkey, it was established that he had obtained a passport in 1990.
He had moreover, without telling the Swiss authorities, previously
spent some time in the Netherlands where he had lived with relatives.
He had furthermore not been in a position to describe in which
mountains he had hidden as from September 1992, nor to tell the names
of the organisers who were arrested during the demonstration in
September 1992.
Insofar as the applicant maintained that criminal proceedings
were pending against him, the Federal Office found that according to
the investigations of the Swiss representation in Ankara, it had not
been established that the applicant was wanted, or that he had been
denied the right to possess a passport.
The Federal Office further found discrepancies in the dates
mentioned by the applicant. Moreover, when questioned during the
asylum proceedings he had once stated that he did not know why the
friends with whom he had hidden in the mountains were looked for by the
police, whereas upon another occasion he had told the Swiss authorities
that his friends were wanted inter alia as they had organised protests.
The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Swiss Appeals
Commission in Matters of Asylum (Schweizerische Asylrekurskommission)
on 16 February 1995.
In its decision the Appeals Commission found in particular that
it did not transpire from the applicant's submissions that upon his
return to Turkey there was a serious risk that he would be submitted
to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant
was also free upon his return to Turkey to reside in areas other than
those where he had lived before.
On 23 February 1995 the applicant was ordered to leave
Switzerland before 31 May 1995.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he cannot return to Turkey where as
a Kurd he will be persecuted. Moreover, he refuses to undertake
military service and will therefore be punished.
The applicant further complains about unfairness of the asylum
proceedings. He alleges in this respect for instance that the
authorities did not consider his statements.
The applicant complains about various instances of discrimination
resulting from his position as a person who has requested asylum. For
instance, he has no permission to work, he finds no support to obtain
special literature, he cannot travel in Switzerland without permission,
and he suffers psychological distress as he only receives 91 SFr a
month for his upkeep. The situation is worse than in prison.
Considerations
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that he cannot return to Turkey where as
a Kurd he will be persecuted and subjected to treatment contrary to
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
According to the Convention organs' case-law, the right of an
alien to reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by
the Convention. Nevertheless, expulsion may in exceptional
circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where
there is a serious and well-founded fear of treatment contrary to
Article 2 or 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the Convention in the country to which
the person is to be expelled (see No. 10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40
p. 262, mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of
7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 32 et seq., paras. 81 et seq.).
However, the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of the
unsettled general situation in a country is in itself insufficient to
give rise to a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (see Eur.
Court H.R., Vilvarajah and others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series
A no 215, p. 37, para. 111).
Having examined the circumstances of the present case as they
have been submitted by the applicant, the Commission notes that the
applicant has not provided any documents or other evidence in support
of his allegations, nor has he shown that upon his return to Turkey he
will be prevented from taking up residence in parts of the country
other than those where he lived before.
The Commission has therefore had regard to the decisions of the
Federal Office for Refugees on 11 April 1994, and of the Swiss Appeals
Commission in Matters of Asylum on 16 February 1995. The Commission
notes that the authorities carefully examined the applicant's
allegations, though they concluded that he had not credibly established
a danger of persecution upon his return to Turkey.
Thus, the applicant has failed to show that upon his return to
Turkey he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention about unfairness of the asylum proceedings,
the Commission recalls that the decision whether an alien should be
allowed to stay in a country or be expelled does not involve either the
determination of the alien's civil rights or obligations, or a criminal
charge, within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention (see No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 105). This part
of the application is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the
provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. Insofar as the applicant appears to complain under Article 14
(Art. 14) of the Convention of various instances of discrimination
which he has been suffering in Switzerland during the asylum
proceedings, the Commission finds that the complaint has not been
sufficiently substantiated. The remainder of the application is
therefore also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
Order
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(M.T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)