Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19760520-721675
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 01:56:48+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7216/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-05-20;7216.75 Analyses : (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 11-1) FONDER ET S'AFFILIER A DES SYNDICATS, (Art. 11-1) INTERET DES MEMBRESParties : Demandeurs : X. v. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7216/7 5 X . v/FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y X . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 20 May 1976 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 20 mai 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : The expulsion of an individual to a particular country can, under exceptional circumstances be contrary to Article 3 . Comparison between the behaviour of the person concerned and his allegations. Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies. (a) When an individual complains that his expulsion would lead to a separation from his family, he should exhaust the available remedies against the order of expulsion . (b) When an individual complains that his deportation to a particular country, in execution of an expulsion measure, exposes him to e serious danger, appeals without suspensive effect cannot be considered effective.
Article 26 of the Convention : 6 months time limit . When an individual claims that his deportation to a particcular country, carried out in execution of a deportation order, exposes him to a serious danger but where appeals by him against the order are still pending and his continued residence is permitted, the 6 months period cannot be considered to have started to run in his case on the date of the final decision setting aside eve ry suspensive effect of his appeals. Article 3 de ta Convention : L'expulsion d'un individu vers un pays dÃ©terminÃ© peut, dans des circonstances exceptionneles, Ã©tre contraire Ã© l'article 3 . Compareison entre le comportement de l'intÃ©ressÃ© et ses allÃ©gations . I : Epuisement des voies de recours internes . Article 26 de la Convention (a) Lorsqu'un individu se plaint que son expulsion a pour effet de le sÃ©perer de sa temille, il doit avoir exercÃ© les recours disponibles contre la dÃ©cision d'expulsion . (b) Lorsqu'un individu se plaint que son transfert dans un pays dÃ©terminÃ©, en exÃ©cution d'une mesure d'expulsion, l'expose Ã un grave danger, les recours sans effet suspensif de l'exÃ©cution ne peuvent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme efficaces . Article 26 de ta Convention : DÃ©lai de six mois . Lorsqu'un individu allÃ©gue que son transfert dans un pays dÃ©terminÃ©, en exÃ©cution d'une mesure d'expulsion, l'expose Ã© un grave danger, mais que ses recours contre la dÃ©cision d'expulsion sont encore pendants et qu'il a bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'une tolÃ©rance de sÃ©jour, on ne peut lui opposer l'Ã©chÃ©ance du dÃ©lai de six mois Ã compter de la dÃ©cision dÃ©tinitive Ã©cartant tout effet suspensif de ses recours .
(English : see p . 141 1
Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare qu'il est ressortissant libanais, qu'il aurait combattu comme guÃ©rillero au Liban et en Syrie aprÃ©s un entrainement militaire en Chine et en URSS, mais qu'ayant refusÃ© de rejoindre les rangs de l'organisation Â« Septembre Noir u i/ aurait dÃ¹ fuir le Proche-Orient oÃ¹ l'attendraient de graves mesures de reprÃ©sailles . ArrivÃ© illÃ©galement Ã Berlin-Ouest en 1972, il a dÃ©posÃ© une demande d'asile politique en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale mais n'a pas rÃ©pondu aux convocations de l'office compÃ©tent . Sa demande a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e en juin 1974 et le requÃ©rant a formÃ© opposition contre ce refus en juillet 1974 . Fin 1972, une dÃ©cision d'expulsion fut prise contre lui par les autoritÃ©s de Berlin, mais non exÃ©cutÃ©e . Une dÃ©cision semblable fut prise en Ã©tÃ© 1974 et dÃ©clarÃ©e immÃ©diatement exÃ©cutoire . En aoÃ¹t 1974, le requÃ©rant saisit d'un recours le tribunal admi. nistratif. Ce dernier, puis le tribunal administratif supÃ©rieur en octobre 1974, dÃ©c/arÃ¨rent la dÃ©cision exÃ©cutoire nonobstant recours, tout en rÃ©servant le fond . Le requÃ©rant fut alors dÃ©tenu en vue de son expulsion, puis mis en /ibertÃ© en dÃ©cembre 1974 et obtint une autorisation de sÃ©jour provisoire . En janvier 1975, il a Ã©pousÃ© une ressortissante allemande, dont il a un enfant . Toutefois, en mars 1975, il quitta le domicile conjugal et fut arrÃ©tÃ© Ã Hagen puis condamnÃ© pour des dÃ©/its de droit commun. AprÃ©s avoir purgÃ© sa peine, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© mis en dÃ©tention en vue de son expulsion. Entre-temps, son Ã©pouse a introduit une demande en divorce. En mars 1976, l'opposition formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant contre le refus d'asile politique a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e. Le requÃ©rant a introduit sa requÃªte devant la Commission le 3 juin 1975 . La recevabilitÃ© a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© contradictoirement .
EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant a fait l'objet d'une dÃ©cision d'expulsion du territoire de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Il se plaint que cette dÃ©cision l'obligera Ã vivre sÃ©parÃ© de son Ã©pouse qui est de nationalitÃ© allemande et rÃ©side Ã Berlin, ainsi que de son enfant en bas Ã ge, qui vit avec sa mÃ¨re . Il est vrai que l'article 8 de la Convention reconnait Ã toute personne le droit au respect de sa vie familiale . Toutefois, la Commission n'est pas appelÃ©e Ã se prononcer sur le point de savoir si les faits allÃ©guÃ©s par le requÃ©rant rÃ©vÃ¨lent l'apparence d'une violation de cette disposition . En effet, aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention, Â« la Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus Â» . En l'espÃ©ce, le requÃ©rant a recouru devant le tribunal administratif de Berlin contre la dÃ©cision d'expulsion du . . juillet 1974 et la procÃ©dure de recours est encore pendante . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours dont il disposait en droit allemand . De plus, il n'existe sur ce point aucune circonstance paniculiÃ¨re qui pourrait dispenser le requÃ©rant, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus en la matiÃ¨re, d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes .
II Ã©chet de relever aussi, en tant que de besoin, que le requÃ©rant est en instance de divorce devant la cour d'appel de Berlin, de sorte que la question de l'existence de _188_
relations de famille entre lui-mÃ©me et son Ã©pouse, de mÃ©me que la question de l'Ã©tendue de ses relations de famille avec son enfant sont actuellement indÃ©cises . La requÃ©te doit donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e, sur ce point, en application de l'article 27, Â§ 3, de la Convention, pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes .
Le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre que les autoritÃ©s de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale a d'Allemagne sont sur le point de le faire conduire de force au Liban, en exÃ©cution de la dÃ©cision d'expulsion prÃ©citÃ©e, laquelle est exÃ©cutoire nonobstant recours, ainsi qu'en a dÃ©cidÃ© le tribunal administratif supÃ©rieur de Berlin le . . octobre 1974. II allÃ©gue que sa vie serait menacÃ©e au Liban, parce qu'il y est recherchÃ© par un commando palestinien qui a rÃ©solu de l'exÃ©cuter . b . Le Gouvernement mis en cause a objectÃ© que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention, ni en ce qui concerne la dÃ©cision d'expulsion proprement dite, ni en ce qui concerne la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir l'asile politique en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne .
En effet, le recours formÃ© par le requÃ©rant contre la dÃ©cision d'expulsion du juillet 1974 est encore pendant devant le tribunal administratif de Berlin (voir considÃ©rant prÃ©cÃ©dent) . En ce qui concerne le refus d'asile politique, il est vrai que la Commission de recours prÃ¨s l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral des rÃ©fugiÃ©s a rejetÃ© l'opposition du requÃ©rant le . . mars 1976 ; mais cette dÃ©cision est elle-mÃªme susceptible de recours (Klage) devant le tribunal administratif . Toutefois, l'objection du Gouvernement doit Ã©tre Ã©cartÃ©e car ces divers recours ne peuvent, en l'espÃ¨ce, Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©s comme efficaces . En effet, la procÃ©dure relative 31'asile politique n'a pas, en elle-mÃ©me, d'effet suspensif de la mesure d'expulsion . D'autre part, selon dÃ©cision rendue par le tribunal administratif supÃ©rieur de Berlin le . . octobre 1974, l'effet suspensif du recours contre la dÃ©cision d'expulsion a Ã©tÃ© supprimÃ© . Il s'ensuit que les recours pendants ou disponibles ne sont pas de nature Ã Ã©carter la menace d'expulsion matÃ©rielle du requÃ©rant vers le Liban, qui est l'objet mÃ©me du prÃ©sent grief . Celui-ci ne saurait donc Ã©tre rejetÃ© pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes .
c . Le Gouvernement mis en cause a Ã©galement objectÃ© que plus de six mois se sont Ã©coulÃ©s entre la dÃ©cision prÃ©citÃ©e du tribunal administratif de Berlin, du . . octobre 1974, et l'introduction de la requÃ©te, de sorte que la requÃªte serait tardive, vu l'article 26 de la Convention . Toutefois, cette dÃ©cision se limitait Ã supprimer l'effet suspensif du recours contre l'arrÃ©tÃ© d'expulsion, sans toucher au bien-fondÃ© de cet arrÃ©tÃ© . Quant au fond, le recours est encore pendant . Sans mÃªme qu'il soit nÃ©cessaire de prendre en considÃ©ration le fait que le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u une autorisation de sÃ©jour provisoire aprÃ©s la dÃ©cision du . . octobre 1974, on ne saurait donc lui opposer aujourd'hui qu'il est forclos pour n'avoir pas introduit sa requÃ©te dans les six mois suivant la dÃ©cision prÃ©citÃ©e du . . octobre 1974 . La seconde objection du Gouvernement doit donc, elle aussi, Ãªtre Ã©cartÃ©e . d . Selon la jurisprudence de la Commission, l'expulsion d'un individu vers un pays dÃ©terminÃ© peut, dans certaines circonstances exceptionnelles, se rÃ©vÃ©ler contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention, lorsqu'il existe des raisons sÃ©rieuses de croire que cet individu sera exposÃ©, dans ce pays, Ã des traitements prohibÃ©s par cet article (cf . parmi d'autres, la dÃ©cision NÂ° 4763/71, Recueil 37 p . 157) . - 139-
Or, il resso rt du dossier que le requÃ©rant est arrivÃ© Ã Berlin en aoÃ¹t 1972 . A l'appui de sa demande d'asile politique, formÃ©e en octobre 1972 par l'intermÃ©diaire d'un avocat, il a fait valoir pour tout moyen ses difficultÃ©s Ã©conomiques au Liban et l'impossibilitÃ© de trouver du travail dans ce pays . De nombreuses convocations Ã lui adressÃ©es par l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral pour les rÃ©fugiÃ©s sont demeurÃ©es sans rÃ©ponse, car le requÃ©rant avait omis de faire connaÃ®tre ses changements d'adresse . C'est au moment oÃ¹, par l'intermÃ©diaire d'un autre avocat, le requÃ©rant a fait opposition au refus d'asile politique (soit en juin 1974), qu'il a fait Ã©tat - pour la premiÃ©re fois, semble-t-il - du danger que constituerait pour lui les menÃ©es de commandos palestiniens au Liban, qui en voudraient Ã sa vie . Devant la Commis .sion, le requÃ©rant a fourni certains dÃ©tails sur son activitÃ© antÃ©rieure au Liban et sur les circonstances qui auraient attirÃ© sur lui la menace de reprÃ©sailles de la pa rt de ce rt ains groupements radicaux . Il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de trancher ici la question de savoir si la Commission, examinant sous l'angle de l'a rt icle 3 un cas de ce genre, peut tenir compte d'un prÃ©tendu danger provenant non d'autoritÃ©s publiques, mais de groupements autonomes . En effet, le comportement du requÃ©rant depuis son arrivÃ©e Ã Berlin en 1972 ne permet guÃ©re d'ajouter foi Ã ses allÃ©gations relatives au danger qu'il croit courir au Liban, mÃ©me si l'on tient compte de la situation confuse rÃ©gnant actuellement dans ce pays Le requÃ©rant ne conteste pas qu'il a encouru en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne plusieurs condamnations pour des infractions de droit commun . Il a, d'autre pa rt , attendu prÃ©s de deux ans avant de faire valoir devant les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes qu'il courrait un danger grave au Liban . Il a, enfin, fait preuve de nÃ©gligence dans la procÃ©dure tendant Ã l'octroi de l'asile politique . Un tel compo rt ement n'est pas celui d'un homme aux abois qui cherche refuge parce qu'il craint pour sa vie . MÃªme devant la Commission, il n'a pu fournir aucun commencement de preuve de ses dÃ©clarations, par exemple du fait qu'il aurait subi un entraÃ®nement militaire en Chine et en Union SoviÃ©tique pour servir dans des groupements armÃ©s au Proche - Orient . Ces considÃ©rations se rapprochent de celles des autoritÃ©s allemandes en matiÃ©re de refuge politique, qui, Ã deux niveaux successifs, ont examinÃ© la situation du requÃ©rant . Au surplus, il resso rt du dossier que le requÃ©rant est considÃ©rÃ© comme apatride par les autoritÃ©s allemandes et qu'il Ã©tait en possession d'un document de voyage pour rÃ©fugiÃ©s dÃ©livrÃ© par les autoritÃ©s libanaises, mais aujourd'hui Ã©chu : que l'Ambassade du Liban Ã Bonn a mis comme condition au renouvellement de ce document une demande signÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, mais que ce dernier a refusÃ© de signer une telle demande ; que les autoritÃ©s allemandes compÃ©tentes ( Office des Ã© trangers de la Ville de Bochum ) ont alors envisagÃ© la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir d'un autre Etat arabe qu'il accueille le requÃ©rant . Dans ces conditions, il n'est nullement Ã©vident qu'il pourrait Ã©tre e ff ectivement expulsÃ© au Liban .
L'examen de ce grief ne permet donc de dÃ©celer aucune apparence de violation de la Convention, notamment de son a rt icle 3 . II s'ensuit que la requAte doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e, sur ce point, comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'a rticle 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
Summary of the facts The applicant said that he was a Lebanese citizen, that after military training in China and the USSR he had fought as a guerilla in the Lebanon and in Syria, but that after he had refused to rejoin the ranks of the "Black September" organisation serious treats of reprisals forced him to flee from the Middle East. After his illegal entry into West Berlin in 1972, he requested political asylum in the Federal Republic, but did not reply to letters calling him for interview with the appropriate department . The request was turned down in une 1974 ; the applicant appealed in July 1974 . At the end of 1972, the Berlin authorities decided to deport him, but the decision was not carried out. A similar decision was taken in the summer of 1974 and declared to be immediately enforceable . In August 1974 the applicant appealed to the administrative court . Both this court, and in October 1974 the hi,qher administrative court, declared the decision to be enforceable, regardless of the fact that there was an appeal and judgment was reserved on the main issue. The applicant was then detained pending deportation, was freed in December 1974 and obtained a temporary residence permit . In January 1975 he married a German citizen, by whom he had a child. However, in March 1975 he left the matrimonial home, was arrested at Hagen and then convicted of an offence under ordinary criminal law . When he had completed his sentence, the applicant was again put into detention pending deportation .
Meanwhile his wife had begun divorce proceedings . In May 1976, the applicant's appeal against the refusal to grant him political asylum was dismissed.
The applicant had introduced his application before the Commission on 3 June 1975. Its admissibility was examined on the basis of arguments put fonvard by both parties .
(TRANSLATION ) THE LA W The applicant was ordered to be deported from the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany . He submits that this order will force him to live apa rt from his wife, who is of German nationality and resident in Berlin, and from his young child who lives with her . It is true that A rt icle 8 of the Convention guarantees eve ry person the right to respect for his family life . However, the Commission is not required to decide whether the facts alleged by the applicant seem to indicate a violation of that provision . Under Article 26 of the Convention, "the Commission may only deal with the ma tt er after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law" . In this case, the applicant appealed to the administrative cou rt in Berlin against the depo rt ation order of . . July 1974, and the appeal proceedings are still pending .
It follows that the applicant has not exhausted the remedies open to him under German law . Further, there is on this point no special circumstance which might exempt the applicant, according to the relevant generally recognised rules of inter, national law, from exhausting the domestic remedies . It should also be noted, in so far as it is relevant, that the applicant is a party to divorce proceedings before the Berlin appeal court, so that the question of the existence of family ties between him and his wife and the extent of the ties with his child are at present undecided . The application must therefore be rejected, on this point, under Article 27 131 of the Convention, on the ground that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted .
a . The applicant also complains that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany are about to have him forcibly taken to the Lebanon in accordance with the above-mentioned deportation order, which according to the decision of the higher administrative court in Berlin on . . October 1974, is enforceable notwithstanding appeal . He alleges that his life will be in danger in the Lebanon because he is being sought there by a Palestinian commando who has resolved to execute him .
b . The Respondent Government has argued that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies, as this is required by Article 26 of the Convention, either in relation to the actual deportation order or as regards the possibility of obtaining political asylum in the Federal Republic of Germany . The applicant's appeal against the deportation order of . . July 1974 is still pending before the administrative court of Berlin (see preceding section) . As regards the refusal ot political asylum, it is true that the Appeals Board of the Federal Office for Refugees dismissed the applicant's objection on . . March 1976, but that decision is itself open to appeal IKlagel before the administrative court .
However, the Government's objection must be dismissed because the various appeals cannot be regarded as effective in the cas in point . The political asylum procedure does not itself have the effect of suspending the deportation order . Further, according to the decision of the higher administrative court in Berlin on . . October 1974, the suspensive effect of an appeal against a deportation order has been abolished . It follows that the fact that appeals are either pending or possible does not remove the treat of the applicant's physical deportation to the Lebanon, which is the very reason for this complaint . The complaint therefore cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies . c . The Respondent Government has also objected that more than six months elapsed between the above-mentioned decision of the higher administrative court in Berlin of . . October 1974 and the lodging of the application, so that the application is out of time under Article 26 of the Convention .
However, that decision was confined to depriving the deportation order of its suspensive effect, without affecting the substance of the order itself . On the main question, the appeal is still pending . Irrespective of the fact that the applicant was granted a provisional residence permit following the decision of . . October 1974, it cannot therefore be argued today that the application is out of time because it was not lodged during the six months following the above-mentioned decision of . . October 1974 . Thus the Government's second objection must also be rejected . d . According to the Commission's previous decisions deportation of a person to a given country can, in certain exceptional circumstances, infringe Article 3 of th e
Convention where there is serious reason to believe that the person in question will be subjected in that count ry to treatment prohibited by the A rt icle Icf . inter alia, Decision NÂ° 4763/71, Collection of Decisions 37, page 157) . The file shows that the applicant arrived in Berlin in August 1972 . The sole reason given in suppo rt of his request for political asylum, submitted through a lawyer in October 1972, was his financial difficulties in the Lebanon and the impossibility of finding work in that count ry . Many letters sent to him by the Federal Office for Refugees and calling him for interview remained unanswered because the applicant had neglected to give notice of his changes of address .
It was when the applicant appealed, through another lawyer, against the refusal of his request for political asylum (in June 1974) that he mentioned, apparently for the first time, the plots of Palestinian commandos in the Lebanon who were seeking to kill him . The applicant supplied the Commission with certain details of his earlier activities in the Lebanon and of the circumstances which had caused him to be threatened with reprisals by ce rtain extremist groups . It is not necessa ry to decide here whether the Commission, when examining a case of this kind from the standpoint of Article 3, may take into account an alleged danger arising not from public authorities but from autonomous groups . In fact, the applicant's behaviour subsequent to his arrival in Berlin in 1972 scarcely lends credence to his allegations regarding the danger he believes he runs in the Lebanon, even allowing for the confused situation now obtaining in that count ry . The applicant does not deny that he was convicted several times of offences under ordina ry criminal law in the Federal Republic of Germany . Moreover, he waited nearly two years before explaining to the competent authorities that he was exposed to grave danger in the Lebanon . Finally, he acted negligently in the procedure for the granting of political asylum . Such behaviour is not that of a hunted man seeking refuge because he is afraid for his life . Even before the Commission he was unable to provide a shred of evidence for his statements, for example of the fact that he had undergone milita ry training in China and the Soviet Union for the purpose of serving with armed groups in the Middle East . These considerations are similar to those of the German authorities dealing with political refugees, who at two successive administrative levels examined the applicant's situation . In addition, it emerges from the file that the applicant is regarded by the German authorities as a stateless person ; that he was in possession of travel pepers for refugees issued by the Lebanese authorities, which have now expired ; that the Lebanese Embassy in Bonn made the renewal of those papers conditional on a signed application by the applicant, but that he refused to sign, and that the competent German authorities ( the Aliens Office of the town of Bochum) then envisaged the possibility of getting another Arab state to accept The applicant . This being so, it is by no means evident that he could actually be depo rt ed to the Lebanon .
From an examination of this complaint, therefore, it is impossible to discern any apparent violation of the Convention, and in particular of A rt icle 3 . It follows that the application must be rejected, on this point, as being manifestly ill-founded in the sense of Article 27, Â§ 2, of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
- 143 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 20/05/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 3
 l'article 8
 l'article 26
 l'article 27
 l'article 26
 l'article 26
 l'article 3