CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 mars 1990

.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 }                          Application No. 15658/89                         Abdel-Qader Hussein Yassin MANSI                                    against                                    SWEDEN                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                           (adopted on 9 March 1990)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page   INTRODUCTION ...............................................     1   PART I:   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................     3   PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ..................................     5   INTRODUCTION   1.       This Report relates to Application No. 15658/89 introduced against Sweden by Mr.   Abdel-Qader Hussein Yassin Mansi on 19 October 1989 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.   The application was registered on the same day.           The applicant was represented by Mr.   Per Stadig, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent, Ambassador Hans Corell, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   2.       On 7 December 1989 the European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible and retained for further examination the issues arising from the failure to comply with the indications under Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.* The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:   "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:   (a)      it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;   (b)      it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."   3.       The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 9 March 1990 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   __________   *        This decision is public and can be obtained from the         Commission's Secretary.    The decision will be published in         the Commission's official publication entitled Decisions and         Reports.           The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted.                           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                              J.A. FROWEIN                              S. TRECHSEL                              G. SPERDUTI                              G. JÖRUNDSSON                              A. WEITZEL                              H.G. SCHERMERS                              H. DANELIUS                              G. BATLINER                              J. CAMPINOS                         Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                         Sir   Basil HALL                         MM.   C.L. ROZAKIS                              L. LOUCAIDES   PART I   STATEMENT OF FACTS   4.       The applicant is a Jordanian citizen of Palestinian origin, born in 1946.   He was deported to Jordan on 21 October 1989.   In January 1990 the applicant returned to Sweden where he is now staying.   5.       On 18 April 1987 the applicant arrived in Sweden.   He asked for political asylum in Sweden and requested a residence and a work permit. He stated that for political reasons he could not return to Jordan.   6.       On 11 April 1988 the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) in accordance with Section 69 of the 1980 Aliens Act (utlänningslagen) decided to transfer the applicant's case to the Government for a decision.   The Board gave as its opinion that it did not exclude that the reasons given by the applicant against his expulsion to Jordan were such that, according to Section 6 of the 1980 Act, he should not be refused the right to remain in Sweden.   7.       On 20 April 1989 the Government refused the applicant's request and decided to expel him.   Having regard inter alia to an opinion of the National Police Board (rikspolisstyrelsen), the Government found that the reasons invoked by the applicant were, in important respects, not credible.   He could not be considered to be a refugee according to Section 3 of the 1980 Act or according to the 1951 Geneva Convention and there were no such reasons to let him remain in Sweden as envisaged by Section 6 of the Act.   8.       On 12 May 1989 the Police Authority of Stockholm referred the matter of the enforcement of the expulsion order to the National Immigration Board.   Before the Board the applicant invoked the results of a medical examination of 11 May 1989.   He alleged that he risked political persecution in Jordan and that he had previously been imprisoned and tortured in Jordan.   9.       The National Immigration Board in an opinion of 21 June 1989, while transferring the case to the Government, stated that the circumstances of the case were such that the applicant, having invoked particular reasons against returning to Jordan, should enjoy the protection of Section 6 of the 1980 Act.   The Board proposed that the Government should revoke the expulsion order.   10.      On 19 October 1989 the Government found that there were no obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion of the applicant. The Government noted that the applicant had not prior to the decision to expel him alleged that he had been tortured.   They found that neither the explanation he had given for this behaviour, nor the allegation of torture, were credible.   The Government furthermore pointed out that the applicant had given contradictory information as to the length of his imprisonment and they found that the applicant's allegation of political persecution was not credible.   11.      The present application was introduced with the Commission on 19 October 1989.   On the same day the President of the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The President also decided, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Commission not to deport the applicant to Jordan until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application at its forthcoming session from 6 to 10 November 1989.   The Government were informed of these decisions on the same day.   12.      After these decisions the applicant lodged a fresh request for a residence permit with the National Immigration Board and requested that the enforcement of the expulsion should be stayed.   These requests were refused on 20 October 1989.   13.      By letter of 24 October 1989 the Government informed the Commission that the applicant had been expelled to Jordan on 21 October 1989.   14.      Before the Commission the applicant alleged that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the ground that his expulsion to Jordan involved a risk that he would be detained and tortured in the way he had been tortured before.   Subsequently, the applicant alleged that he had been tortured in Jordan after the expulsion.   He further alleged that the Government violated Articles 1 and 25 of the Convention when they deported him in spite of the indication by the Commission's President under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure that he should not be expelled.   PART II   SOLUTION REACHED   15.      Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   16.      By letter of 11 January 1990, the Agent of the Government submitted the following agreement which had been reached between the applicant and the Government and which had been approved by the Government on 11 January 1990.   "SETTLEMENT   On 7 December 1989 the European Commission of Human Rights decided to declare admissible Application No. 15658/89 lodged by Mr.   Abdel-Qader Hussein Yassin Mansi against Sweden.   After negotiations the Swedish Government and Mr.   Mansi, who is now temporarily staying in Denmark at the expense of the Swedish Government, have reached the following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention in order to terminate the proceedings before the Commission.   1.       Mr.   Mansi will be granted permission to return to Sweden and to reside in Sweden permanently.   The present prohibition to re-enter Sweden will be revoked simultaneously.   2.       The Government will pay the costs for Mr.   Mansi's stay in Copenhagen and the costs for his journey from Copenhagen to Sweden (single journey by air in economy class or by train second class).   3.       The Government will see to it that Mr.   Mansi is granted a place in a Refugee Reception Centre until other arrangements can be made.   4.       The Government will make to Mr.   Mansi an ex gratia payment in the amount of one hundred thousand (100,000) Swedish Crowns.   This sum does not include the amounts referred to under item 2.   Furthermore, this sum should be considered as falling under Chapter 5, Section 7 of the Enforcement Code.   5.       Mr.   Mansi is aware of the fact that he may be arrested upon his return to Sweden as suspected of having committed crimes against the Swedish Penal Code and that this matter will have to be dealt with according to the provisions of the said Code and the Code of Judicial Procedure.   6.       The Swedish Government undertakes to use its good offices in order to encourage the competent Jordanian authorities to investigate the circumstances of Mr.   Mansi's treatment by the police in Amman in October and November 1989. Mr.   Mansi is willing to assist in this matter and to give evidence, if needed.   7.       The Government will compensate Mr.   Mansi for his legal fees before the Commission in the amount of fifty thousand (50,000) Swedish Crowns, in addition to what may be paid out by the Council of Europe toward Mr.   Mansi's legal fees and expenses.   8.       Mr.   Mansi declares that he has no further claims against the Swedish Government in the matter.   __________   This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the Swedish Government and of the European Commission of Human Rights.   Stockholm, 9 January 1990   (signed)                                (signed)   Hans Corell                             Per Stadig Agent of the Swedish Government         Counsel for Mr.   Mansi"     17.      Following discussions between the Agent of the Government and the Secretary to the Commission, the Agent of the Government addressed the following letter to the Commission.   "Referring to our discussions regarding the friendly settlement in the above case, I am able to inform you that the Swedish Government, in addition to the settlement with the applicant, makes the following statement in view of the particular circumstances of this case.   The Government regrets that Mr.   Mansi was expelled to Jordan after the indication under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission had been given by the President of the Commission that he should not be expelled."   18.      The Commission, at its session on 9 March 1990, noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. The Commission further found, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and to the statement made by the Government with regard to the indication under Rule 36, that a friendly settlement had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   19.      For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.     Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission              (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)