B. v. SWITZERLAND
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14982/89
by B.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 12 May 1989, the following members being present:
MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
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 1 March 1989
by B. against Switzerland and registered
on 8 May 1989 under file No. 14982/89;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
Facts
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin born in
1956. He is currently remanded in custody at Burgdorf prison in
Switzerland.
According to his statements before the Bern Aliens' Police on
18 May 1988, his father ran a transport company at Polatli in Turkey.
Other business people who were members of the conservative Motherland
Party ANAP decided under the direction of the mayor of Polatli to
found a rival business the purpose of which was to ruin the father's
company. The rival company received tax benefits and set up a group
of thugs (Schlägertrupp).
The applicant's father then entrusted the company to the
applicant and went for some time to work in Ankara. Later, the father
returned to Polatli where today he is again running his company.
The applicant further explained to the Bern Aliens' Police
that while in military service he was transferred three times as a
punishment without being given reasons therefor. Moreover, when he
became president of the local youth organisation of the Republican
People's Party, CHP, political opponents framed him by planting two
grams of hashish on him, whereupon he was sentenced to 20 months'
imprisonment.
The applicant left Turkey on 21 February 1988 and travelled by
train to Switzerland, though the Swiss authorities refused him entry.
On 23 February 1988 he entered Switzerland illegally with the help of
hired persons (Schlepper). He claims that these persons took away his
passport.
On 25 February 1988 he requested asylum in Basel. On 18 March 1988
he was interrogated by the Bern Aliens' Police. Subsequently, on
12 July 1988 he was remanded in custody on suspicion of having
committed drug offences.
On 31 March 1988 the Delegate for Refugees (Delegierter für
das Flüchtlingswesen) dismissed the applicant's request for asylum.
The applicant's appeal against this decision was dismissed on
10 February 1989 by the Federal Department for Justice and Police
(Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) which also ordered
the applicant to leave Switzerland upon his release from detention.
The Department found in particular that the difficulties concerning the
company of the applicant's father could not be attributed to State
authorities and that the applicant had never requested State
assistance with regard to rival businessmen. The decision also noted
that the father was still running the company in Turkey.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of his prospective expulsion to
Turkey. He claims that he will be arrested upon his entry into
Turkey as he no longer has a passport, and will then suffer
ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention since he is a
Kurd and as retaliation for having sought asylum in Switzerland. The
applicant refers in particular to the problems with his father's
company and his imprisonment.
Considerations
THE LAW
The applicant complains that if he is expelled to Turkey he
will be subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention. This provision states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
The Commission has constantly held that the right of an alien
to reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by the
Convention. However, it has also held that expulsion may in
exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for
example where there is a serious fear of treatment contrary to Article
3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (see No. 10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 262).
Insofar as the applicant refers to the general situation of
Kurds in Turkey, the Commission considers that he has failed to show
by means of concrete submissions concerning his own situation that his
treatment in Turkey would render his expulsion contrary to Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention.
Moreover, the fact that the applicant was legally convicted
and imprisoned in Turkey on account of a drug offence cannot in itself
amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
The Commission further considers that the applicant has not
supplied any confirmation for his allegations that he or his family
endured ill-treatment on the part of the State authorities in
connection with the activities of his father's company. The
Commission notes in this respect that after the applicant's departure
from Turkey the applicant's family continued to run the company.
In any event the Commission notes that after his return to
Turkey the applicant can bring an application before the Commission under
Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention in respect of any violation of his
Convention rights by the Turkish authorities.
It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
Order
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission
(H. C. KRÜGER) (J. A. FROWEIN)