CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 septembre 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 16350/90                       by Enno SAARESTIK                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 September 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                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 23 March 1990 by Enno SAARESTIK against Sweden and registered on 27 March 1990 under file No. 16350/90;           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 citizen of the Soviet Union (Estonia), born in 1966.   He is presently in Sweden.   Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. Hans Bredberg, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The applicant and his daughter came to Sweden on 3 July 1988 with a visa to stay in Sweden for 90 days.   The applicant applied for political asylum and a residence permit in Sweden on the ground that he had refused to comply with a draft order for military service and that if he were returned to the Soviet Union he would risk imprisonment for desertion.           On 8 February 1990 the Government (the Ministry of Labour) rejected the request for asylum and a residence permit and ordered that the applicant and his daughter be expelled.           On 9 March 1990 the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) refused to stay the enforcement of the expulsion.           On 12 March 1990 the Immigration Board refused a fresh request for a residence permit.           On 23 March 1990 the Immigration Board again refused to stay the enforcement of the expulsion.           On 26 March 1990 the Immigration Board refused a new request for a residence permit.           On 28 March 1990 the Immigration Board decided that the enforcement of the expulsion order should be stayed until further notice in view of the latest development in the Baltic States.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant complains that if he is returned to the Soviet Union there is a risk that he will be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   He states that, during military service, he has previously been subjected to such treatment and has submitted a medical certificate.   2.       The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the ground that, if returned, he would not be given a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal as the legal system of the Soviet Union does not meet those standards.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 23 March 1990 and registered on 27 March 1990.           On 27 March 1990 the President of the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, not to indicate to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to the Soviet Union, pending the Commission's further examination of the case.   THE LAW           The applicant complains that his expulsion to the Soviet Union would involve a violation of Articles 3 (Art. 3 ) and 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.           The Commission recalls that it is not normally for the Convention institutions to pronounce on the existence of potential violations of the Convention.   A departure from that principle is made in cases where an applicant claims that a decision to expel or extradite him would, if implemented, be contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) by reason of its foreseeable consequences in the country of destination. The Convention institutions will, however, only examine complaints of potential violations where the expulsion or extradition is imminent.           In the present case, in view of the Immigration Board's decision of 28 March 1990, there is no indication that the applicant's expulsion to the Soviet Union is imminent.           In these circumstances, there is no appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) or Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.           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)