frsrdg · GS04JO1 · 2005-01-01 00:00:00 — Therefore no special request is required in each individual case. The authorities should, moreover, organize continual contact and mee- tings, both locally and regionally, to enable discussion of the current situ- ation in enforcement cases. The board may learn that an alien is no longer in , as he or she has submitted an application from abroad. If the board then informs the authority, there is no longer any need to establish the whereabouts of the alien and the case may be terminated. In many other situations when aliens remain in the board may also receive information that can have a bearing on enforcement. Infor- mation may be received in speech or writing, from relatives, other autho- rities etc. It can also come from some other individual or even anony- mously. In some cases, an alien may make personal contact with the board for some reason, to be registered again, for instance. Aliens may be observed at a centre without being registered there or may apply again for a permit using different identities. It goes without saying that the board should inform the authori- ties in these and similar cases. It can be noted here as well, that anyone B I L A G A 10 20 04 /05 :JO1 evading a deportation or expulsion order has forfeited the right to support as laid down in the Act on the Reception of Asylum Seekers etc. The board is therefore obliged to contact the authorities when an alien wishes to re-register to ascertain that he or she is not on their wanted list. In every individual case a decision has to be made about the best way to contact the , by telephone, in writing or some other way. Someti- mes it may be enough merely to refer the alien or the informer to the po- lice. If the board is in direct contact with an alien and decides to inform the , the alien should always be informed. In view of the information about cooperation between and the that he or she has previously been given, this should be accepted. Howe- ver, if an alien has merely been observed, at a reception centre for instan- ce, there is nothing to stop the board from contacting the without informing the alien. The authority should inform when it is planned to enforce an order referred to it, especially when the alien is in custody in premises belonging to the board. Pursuant to a decision made by the Director General, clarification of Circular GDM no. 8/01 was published in a circular on , 2002. This states the following for instance. When we refer a deportation or expulsion order to the , or request assistance with a detention order, we should be completely open in the information we give to the applicant. This means that if a decision is made to refer a case to the or a request submitted for assistance with a detention order, the appli- cant should first be informed before the can be approached. In addition, at an early stage in our contacts with applicants we must ensure that they realise that if they do not voluntarily return or leave the country, the case will be referred to the authorities. The above account of the current legal regulations makes it clear that an alien who is no longer allowed to remain in as a result of a deportation order issued by , must, in principle, leave the country no later than two weeks after the decision has gained the force of law. There is no requirement for the alien to have been served the decision before this period can start, but it has of course been assumed that he or she will have been informed without delay (Government 1988/89:86 p. Therefore aliens are given a certain amount of time in which to leave the country voluntarily. If they opt not to comply voluntarily and/or become fugi- tives, the decision is to be enforced, in a case like this one, by the authorities with all dispatch. The Swedish Migration Boards deportation decision concerning F.K. gai- ned the force of law by virtue of the decision in 31, 1998. He then had the possibility of leaving voluntarily within two weeks. As a result of his manifest refusal to accept the decision and cooperate by leaving the country voluntarily, the authority was required to enforce the order. In view of the distress that a arrest can involve for an alien, it is ob- vious that it is extremely important for aliens to be told as early as possible about the consequences of refusing to comply by not leaving the country 2 004 /0 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 voluntarily as soon as they are notified that a deportation or expulsion order has gained the force of law. They should be clearly and explicitly informed that they are obliged to leave the country within the prescribed period and that otherwise the order will be enforced by the . They should also be in- formed that in cases of this kind, will cooperate with the to enable enforcement. It is, however, by the very nature of things, obvious that the board will not use false or erroneous information to induce an alien to act in ways which make enforcement possible. In the circu- lar described above, GDM no. 8/01 but not in GDM no. 14/03 it is also pointed out that it is inappropriate for and the authorities to collaborate in summoning an alien to an interview or a meeting for any other reason than the reason given. As has been made clear, responsibility for enforcement of this expulsion order already lay with the authority at the beginning of the case. The enquiry does not reveal whether F.K., either when served with the decision of 31, 1998, or on any other occasion, was given thorough information of the kind described above. In view of these circumstances and as F.K. had remained in for almost two and a half years after the deportation order had been issued, there is reason to wonder to what extent he was aware that he could be arrested by the . In this light, it could be claimed, in my opinion, that F.K. should have been informed that the planned to be present during his visit to 14, 2001. has therefore, in my judgement, acted improperly. However, it has not been shown that it was deliberately planned to deal with the case by using false pretences to induce F.K. to attend so that he could be arrested by the . In view of this and of the fact that the Board has today developed routines for situations of this kind, I shall take the matter no further. What has transpired during the course of this inquiry may be of interest in the review of the report referred to above, SOU 2003:25. I am therefore for- warding a copy of this adjudication to the Government (Ministry for Foreign Affairs) for its attention. This closes the case.