CETIN v. SWITZERLAND
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 16706/90
by Seyit CETIN
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 13 July 1990, the following members being present:
MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 16 May 1990
by Seyit CETIN against Switzerland and registered on 12 June 1990
under file No. 16706/90;
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, a Turkish citizen born in 1956, is a painter
residing at Basel in Switzerland.
According to the applicant's statements subsequently made
before the Swiss authorities in 1984, while he resided at Nevsehir in
Turkey he first belonged to an extreme right wing organisation. In
1980 he joined the left wing organisation Dev Yol. As a result, he
was threatened by right wing extremists; shots were fired at his shop.
In a fight with right wing extremists he injured one person, whereupon
he no longer felt safe and went into hiding in Istanbul. In December
1981 he attempted to travel via Austria to the Federal Republic of
Germany, though he was refused entry into Austria. He then returned
to Turkey.
On 10 April 1984 the applicant again left Turkey. On 15 April
1984 he entered Switzerland whereupon he applied for asylum at the
Aliens' Police of the Canton of Basel-Stadt on account of persecution
in Turkey. This request was dismissed by the Delegate for Refugees
(Delegierte für das Flüchtlingswesen) on 16 October 1989.
The applicant's subsequent appeal (Beschwerde) was dismissed
by the Federal Department of Justice and Police (Eidgenössisches
Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) on 26 April 1990. The Department
found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficiently
concrete measures of persecution. The Department saw a confirmation
therefor in the fact that the applicant had been able to leave and
subsequently to reenter Turkey in 1981. Insofar as the applicant
claimed to have been sentenced to imprisonment in Turkey on account of
his political activities, the Department noted that the applicant had
been asked to submit within a time-limit a document to substantiate
this allegation, but he had failed to do so.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of his expulsion to Turkey which,
after so many years in Switzerland, would constitute hardship for him.
Insofar as the Swiss authorities criticised his lack of integration in
Switzerland, for instance with regard to his irregular employment or
certain criminal offences, he claims that this is partly due to
certain misunderstandings. While he lost his money with gambling, he
has imposed upon himself a prohibition from entering the gambling
parlours concerned. The applicant claims that his wife and two
children must leave him if he returns home penniless.
The applicant does not rely on any particular provision of the
Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 16 May 1990 and registered
on 12 June 1990.
On 12 June 1990 the Acting President decided not to apply
Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
Considerations
THE LAW
The applicant complains, without referring to any particular
provision of the Convention, of his expulsion to Turkey which on
account of his integration in Switzerland and the ensuing lack of
income would cause hardship to him and his family in Turkey.
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, 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. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286).
In the present case the applicant has not raised any
allegations before the Commission which might indicate the existence
of such exceptional circumstances.
Even assuming that the applicant may be understood as
referring in his application to the submissions he made before the
Swiss authorities, the Commission notes that the alleged persecution
occurred in 1980 and that subsequently he was able to leave and
reenter Turkey in 1981 without difficulties. Moreover, the applicant
failed to submit, both before the Swiss authorities and the
Commission, any documents which would have substantiated his
allegations regarding persecution in the past.
As a result, the Commission cannot find the circumstances to
be such as to warrant the conclusion that the applicant's expulsion
would be contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention on account
of a risk of ill-treatment in Turkey.
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.
The application must therefore 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.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (J. A. FROWEIN)