CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 septembre 1997

.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. 34944/97                       by Immanuel CHIEDU                       against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1997, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA            Mrs.   M. HION            MM.    R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV              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 22 November 1996 by Immanuel CHIEDU against Sweden and registered on 17 February 1997 under file No. 34944/97;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant, a Nigerian citizen born in 1961, resides in Mölndal, Sweden.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         On 26 May 1990 the applicant married a Swedish woman.   They divorced on 2 December 1994.   They have two children, 5 and 4 years old respectively, of whom the mother has custody.         The applicant arrived in Sweden in December 1990.   He has a permanent residence permit valid until 1 July 1999.         By judgment of the District Court (tingsrätten) of Göteborg of 13 August 1996, the applicant was convicted of attempted aggravated assault (försök till grov misshandel), aggravated reckless driving (grov vårdslöshet i trafik) and two narcotics offences.   He was sentenced to two years in prison.   Furthermore, his expulsion from Sweden was ordered.         As regards the question of expulsion, the District Court had regard to a statement from the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) to the effect that there were no impediments to expelling the applicant to Nigeria.   The court further found that the applicant had only irregular contacts with his children and that, in view of his involvement in what appeared to be organised narcotics traffic, there were special reasons to order his expulsion.         The applicant appealed against the expulsion order.   However, on 7 October 1996, the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Western Sweden upheld the District Court's judgment.   The applicant received directions on how to appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen).         The applicant subsequently, by letter to the Court of Appeal of 25 November 1996, appealed to the Supreme Court.   On 3 December 1996, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for having been lodged out of time, the time-limit having expired on 4 November 1996.         The applicant appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision but, on 8 January 1997, the Supreme Court upheld it.         On 12 December 1996 the National Paroles Board (Kriminalvårds- nämnden) ordered that the applicant be released from prison on 30 August 1997, after which date he may be expelled to Nigeria.         Apparently, the applicant has requested the Government to revoke the expulsion order.   Moreover, he has petitioned the Government for pardon.   No decision has been taken by the Government, however.         The applicant has submitted a copy of the Nigerian National Drug Law Enforcement Decree No. 33 of 1990, Section 12 A of which states that any Nigerian citizen found guilty of narcotics offences in a foreign country is guilty of an offence also under that Section and is liable to imprisonment for five years.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant contends that his expulsion would fail to respect his family life, as he would be separated from his children.   He further claims that, according to Nigerian law, he might be tried and executed for the narcotics offences he committed in Sweden.   He invokes Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Articles 1 and 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 22 November 1996 and registered on 17 February 1997.         On 15 July 1997 the applicant requested the Commission to petition the Government of Sweden to stay his expulsion.   On 23 July 1997 the Acting President of the Commission decided not to indicate to the Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, the measure suggested by the applicant.     THE LAW         The applicant contends that his expulsion would fail to respect his family life, as he would be separated from his children.   He further claims that, according to Nigerian law, he might be tried and executed for the narcotics offences he committed in Sweden.         The Commission is, however, not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of the Articles invoked as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it "may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ...".   The Commission recalls that the applicant's appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed as the applicant had failed to respect the applicable time-limit for appealing to the Supreme Court.   He has thus not exhausted the remedies available to him under Swedish law.   Moreover, an examination of the complaints does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the remaining remedy at his disposal.         It follows that the application must be rejected for non- exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           H.C. KRÜGER                           S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                             President      of the Commission                     of the Commission