CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 22 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 }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 22169/93                     by B.A.                     against Finland        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following members being present:             Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV                G. RESS             Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber.        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 10 March 1993 by B.A. against Finland and registered on 6 July 1993 under file No. 22169/93;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to the information submitted by the respondent Government on 28 and 30 September 1993;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a citizen of Morocco, born in 1966 and resident at Meknes, Morocco.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        The applicant visited Finland as a tourist in 1989. In the summer of 1990 he again entered Finland, without a residence permit. In December 1990 he was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.        On 26 April 1991 the Ministry of the Interior (sisäasiain- ministeriö, inrikesministeriet) decided to expel the applicant and to prohibit him from returning to Finland within five years. The Ministry took account of his conviction and lack of permanent ties to Finland. The applicant's appeal was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) on 7 June 1991.        After his return to Morocco the applicant was allegedly in frequent contact with the Finnish Consul, attempting to lodge a request that the prohibition on his return to Finland be revoked or its duration shortened. He stated that he wished to visit a child which had allegedly been born to him and a Finnish woman after he had left Finland. According to the applicant, no measures were taken by the Finnish authorities in response to his request.        On 8 October 1993 the Ministry of the Interior rejected the applicant's request for a revocation of the prohibition on his return to Finland. Having contacted the woman alleged to be the mother of the applicant's child, the Ministry had concluded that the applicant's claims were false.        On 18 March 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's appeal.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains that during his stays in Finland he was badly treated by the Finnish authorities, notably in connection with the pretrial investigation of the offence of which he was later convicted and while he was serving his prison sentence. He invokes Article 5 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.   2.    Initially, the applicant also complained that he could not obtain an examination of his request for a permission to enter Finland in order to visit his alleged child. Subsequently, he chose to complain about the refusal by the Finnish authorities to revoke the prohibition on his return. He claims that the reason for the refusal is that the child's mother, who is married, has given the Finnish authorities the impression that she does not know the applicant and that she has no child with him. He invokes Article 5 of Protocol No. 7.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 10 March 1993 and registered on 6 July 1993.        On 8 September 1993 the Rapporteur of the Commission requested the respondent Government to submit certain information, pursuant to Rule 47 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure.        Information was submitted by the Government on 28 and 30 September 1993.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that, while staying in Finland, he was badly treated by the Finnish authorities.        The Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of that provision, as it follows from Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention that it may only deal with a matter which has been brought to its attention within six months from the end of the treatment complained of (e.g., No. 11123/84, Dec. 9.12.87, D.R. 54 pp. 52 et seq.).        In the applicant's case the treatment complained of ended at the latest in 1991, when he was expelled from Finland. His complaint was lodged on 10 March 1993 which is more than six months later. An examination of the complaint does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of the six months' period.        It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant further complains about the lengthy prohibition on his return to Finland which is preventing him from visiting a child which he claims has been born to him in that country. He invokes Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-5).        The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which 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 considers that the refusal to revoke the prohibition on the applicant's return to Finland raises the question whether there has been a lack of respect for his family life. The Commission recalls, however, that, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the entry of non-nationals to its territory. Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. A State's obligation to admit to its territory foreign relatives of its citizens will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 33-34, para. 67).        As regards the facts of the present case, the Commission finds that no evidence has been shown that the applicant has a child in Finland. Nor has the applicant shown that he has any other family tie to that country. In ordering his expulsion and five-year prohibition on return the Finnish authorities took into account his criminal behaviour and his lack of ties to the country. In these circumstances, the Commission finds no elements which would indicate that the respondent Government, when refusing to revoke the prohibition on the applicant's return, exceeded their margin of appreciation in striking a balance between the general interests of the community and the individual interests of the applicant. The Commission therefore concludes that there has been no lack of respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.        It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                          (C.L. ROZAKIS)