CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 décembre 1988

.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. 14007/88                       by Kerstin GADEDI                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 December 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                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 5 April 1988 by Kerstin Gadedi against Sweden and registered on 8 July 1988 under file No. 14007/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1954 and resident at Södertälje, Sweden.   She is a nursery-school teacher, but has been receiving sickness benefits since 1 January 1983.   She married a Greek citizen on 24 April 1973, after having known him since 1969.   They have a daughter born on 5 January 1975.           The applicant's husband came to Sweden from Greece for the first time on 26 June 1969.   In 1971 he returned to Greece. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him in Sweden and he was extradited to Sweden from Germany in the summer of 1973.   He was committed to psychiatric care by the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) on 23 November 1973 after having been convicted inter alia of gross theft and robbery.   In addition the Court ordered that he should be expelled from Sweden.   The applicant's husband was detained in an institution for mental care for three months and was then expelled to Greece.           The applicant joined him in Greece, but returned to Sweden after three months.   She had difficulties to adapt and was expecting a child.           The child was born on 5 January 1975.           On 14 March 1978 the District Court of Stockholm (Stockholms tingsrätt) convicted the applicant's husband of inter alia gross fraud and illegal stay in Sweden.   He was sentenced to psychiatric care.           On 4 October 1979 the District Court again convicted him of fraud.   He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.   After having served parts of his sentence he was released on probation on 14 February 1980.   His request to be allowed to stay in Sweden was rejected by the Government on 11 February 1980.   He was accordingly expelled from Sweden after his release.           The Government decided on 26 February 1981 that the applicant's husband should be allowed to stay in Sweden until 31 August 1981.   This time was extended until 31 December 1982 by a decision of the Government of 17 December 1981.           On 29 May 1984 the District Court of Södertälje convicted the applicant's husband of assault, unlawful threats, petty larceny and threats against a public official.   He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.   He appealed against the judgment, which was confirmed by the Svea Court of Appeal on 28 February 1985.           On 7 November 1985 the Government rejected a request from the applicant's husband that, in the first place, the expulsion decision concerning him be revoked or, in the second place, he nevertheless be allowed to stay in Sweden.           On 24 February 1986 a request for non-enforcement of the expulsion decision of 1973 was rejected by the Minister of Labour.           The applicant's husband was released from prison on 28 February 1986 and again expelled from Sweden.           In an opinion of 11 June 1987, on a request made by the applicant that the expulsion decision concerning her husband be revoked or he nevertheless be allowed to stay in Sweden, the Swedish Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) stated that her husband by relapsing into crime had shown that he would not lead an orderly life in Sweden.    On 27 August 1987 the Government rejected the applicant's request.           The applicant submitted a further request that the expulsion decision be revoked or, alternatively, the prohibition for her husband to return to Sweden be limited in time.   The Government rejected her request on 10 December 1987.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the expulsion of her husband interferes with her right to respect for her family life and her home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.           The applicant submits that it is not possible for her to enjoy family life together with her husband and their daughter in Greece. The applicant has no knowledge of Greek, nor does her daughter.   It would be difficult for them to adapt to the Greek way of life.   They never spent any longer periods in Greece.     THE LAW           The applicant complains that the expulsion of her husband from Sweden interfered with her right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.           Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads as follows:   1.       Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.   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."           The Commission recalls its constant case-law according to which no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country, nor a right not to be expelled from a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention (cf. e.g.   No. 9203/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 239).           Nevertheless, Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention guarantees to everyone the right to respect for private and family life.           The Commission has constantly held that the expulsion of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of Article 8 (Art. 8).           In the present case the Commission accepts that the expulsion of the applicant's husband constituted an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life in the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1).   The question therefore arises whether this interference was justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) as being effected in accordance with the law and as being necessary for one or more of the purposes indicated in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).           The Commission is satisfied that the expulsion was ordered and effected in accordance with Swedish law.   Since the reason for the expulsion was the applicant's husband's criminal behaviour, the Commission also accepts the purpose of the measure as being the prevention of disorder or crime as referred to in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).           As regards the necessity of the measure, the Commission first recalls that in several cases of married men being expelled the Commission has attached some importance to the question as to whether the wife would be able to follow her husband to establish together with him their family life in another country (see, for instance, No. 8041/77, Dec. 15.12.77, D.R. 12 p. 197).           In the present case, the Commission recognises the problems which the applicant would have to face if she decided to move with her daughter to her husband's home-country Greece.   However, the Commission does not find it excluded that their family life could be re-established in Greece.           In any case, the Commission must attach great weight to the applicant's husband's criminal record in Sweden and, in particular, to the fact that, after the expulsion order was made in 1973, he was convicted of new offences in 1978 and 1979 and that, after he had again been expelled but allowed to return to Sweden on a trial basis in 1981, he was again convicted in 1984 of offences, including assault and threats.           In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the Swedish authorities were justified in regarding the applicant's husband's expulsion in 1986 as a measure necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime.           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           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE       Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission           (H. C. KRÜGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)