M.K. AND L. K.-K. v. SWITZERLAND

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention of their expulsion from Switzerland. They submit in

particular that they have integrated well into the community where they

reside.

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."

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 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the country to which the person

is to be expelled (see Eur. Court HR, Chahal v. United Kingdom judgment

of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, No. 22, paras. 72 ff,).

In this respect, 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 HR, Vilvarajah and others v. United Kingdom

judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no 215, p. 37, para. 111).

Moreover, the expulsion of a person from a country where close

members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the

right to respect for his private and family life guaranteed in

Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention (see Eur. Court HR,

Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193,

p. 18, para. 36; No. 9203/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R. 24, p. 239).

The Commission has first examined the applicants' case under

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. However, the applicants have

not complained that upon their return to the Democratic Republic of

Congo or Angola, respectively, they would be subjected to treatment

contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. In any event, no

concrete risk of such treatment transpires from the case-file.

The Commission has next examined the applicants' case under

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. However, it notes that the

applicants will not be separated from each other, or from their

children, as a result of the expulsion. Moreover, the applicants have

not contended that after their expulsion they would be separated from

each other in that they would have to reside in different countries.

In any event, the Commission notes the decision of the Asylum Appeals

Commission of 2 June 1997 concerning the second applicant according to

which there was no risk of a civil war in Angola and the second

applicant could, therefore, be expected to follow the first applicant

to his home country.

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. The applicants complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention of the length of the asylum proceedings.

The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

does not apply to asylum proceedings (see No. 12364/86, Dec. 17.10.86,

D.R. 50 p. 280). It has, therefore, examined this complaint under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-1) to the Convention which states in

para. 1:

"An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State

shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision

reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:

(a) to submit reasons against his expulsion,

(b) to have his case reviewed, and

(c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent

authority or a person or persons designated by that

authority."

However, even assuming that the applicants were "lawfully

resident" in Switzerland within the meaning of this provision, the

Commission finds that the applicants' complaint does not disclose any

appearance of a violation of the rights set out in Article 1 para. 1

of Protocol No. 7 (P7-1-1). In this respect the application is

therefore also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.