CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 20 février 1995

.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. 23662/94                       by Ibrahim ÜNVER and Sana ISSA                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 20 February 1995, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  H. DANELIUS                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS              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 7 March 1994 by Ibrahim ÜNVER and Sana ISSA against Sweden and registered on 14 March 1994 under file No. 23662/94;         Having regard to :   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the Commission's decision of 11 March 1994 to request information       from the respondent Government;   -      the information provided by the respondent Government on       19 April 1994 and the comments in reply submitted by the       applicants on 25 May 1994;   -      the Commission's decision of 10 October 1994 to request further       information from the respondent Government;   -      the information provided by the respondent Government on       28 October 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1962 and 1968, respectively. They are allegedly stateless. They are currently living in Sweden and are represented by Mr. Leif Rydberg, a lawyer in Bergshamra.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.         The wife entered Sweden on 10 October 1990. She stated to the police that in August 1990 six masked men had come to look for her husband in their home in Lebanon in order to persuade him to join one of the fighting militias. The husband had been absent at the time and the persons had then attempted to rape her. She had screamed for help and an armed neighbour had come to her rescue, threatening to shoot the attackers, who then left.         The husband entered Sweden on 26 December 1990. He stated that in the beginning of 1990 his barber shop had been burned down because he had refused to support ex-General Aoun's forces. Both applicants had allegedly been harassed, assaulted and otherwise persecuted for being Christians.         Both applicants entered Sweden on false passports, claiming that they have never been given a Lebanese passport due to their lack of citizenship. Their parents allegedly originated from Turkey and were of Assyrian origin.         On 13 June 1991 the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) rejected the applicants' request for asylum or residence permits, considering, notably, that the general situation in Lebanon was not such that asylum should be granted. The applicants were ordered to be expelled to Lebanon, although their citizenship was considered to be unknown.         On 5 June 1992 the National Immigration Board's decision was upheld by the Aliens' Appeals Board (utlänningsnämnden).         On 15 September 1992 the applicants lodged a further request for asylum or residence permits, referring to the alleged arrest and disappearance of an asylum seeker returned from Sweden to Lebanon.         On 17 September 1992 the applicants' further request was rejected by the National Immigration Board.         Pending an investigation of the applicants' possible citizenship the expulsion order has not yet been enforced.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain about their possibly forthcoming expulsion to Lebanon, where they fear they would be subjected to further persecution, possibly with a deadly result. They refer to the persecution of Christians by the Muslim-dominated Syrian rulers of Lebanon. They also assert that stateless persons of Turkish origin cannot receive Lebanese citizenship and related rights. The applicants have allegedly also been forced to perform activities in support of General Aoun's forces. Such supporters may still be arrested in Lebanon. The applicants finally refer to the second applicant's severe asthma and chronic bronchitis. They invoke Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 7 March 1994 and registered on 14 March 1994.         On 11 March 1994 the Commission decided to request information from the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure.         The information requested by the Commission was submitted by the Government on 19 April 1994. The applicants submitted comments in reply on 25 May 1994 after an extension of their time-limit.         On 10 October 1994 the Commission decided to request further information from the respondent Government.         The information requested by the Commission was submitted by the Government on 28 October 1994.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes the respondent Government's statement that there are no plans to attempt to enforce the expulsion order concerning the applicants, since it has not been possible to establish their true identities and nationalities. The Commission finds, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of their petition. It furthermore finds no special circumstances regarding respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the continuation of the examination of the application.         The Commission recalls, however, that under Article 30 para. 3 of the Convention it may decide to restore a petition to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)