Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19841210-1056483
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 05:01:24+00:00

Document:
L. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche L. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10564/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-12-10;10564.83 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : L.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10564/83 L . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y L . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 10 December 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 10 dÃ©cembre 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : Expulsion to a specified country may be contrary to Article 3 if the life or physical integrity of the person concerned are at serious risk. 7his is not the case where the person may have criminal proceedings brought again.rt him, even for desertion 26 of t6e Convention : Where an individual alleges that being sent, pursuant .Article to an expulsion order, to a specified country would expose him to serious danger (Anicle 3 of the Convention), appeals without suspensive effect cannot be regarded as effective . B'here a person complains about his expulsion because he claims to be a national of the expelling State (Article 3 para . I of Protocol IV), remedies must be ezhausted even if without suspensive effect vis-Ã -vis the expulsion . ARicle 3 de la Convention : L'espulsion vers un pays dÃ©terminÃ© peut Ãªtre contraire Ã l'article 3 si elle comporte un grave danger pour la vie de l'intÃ©ressÃ© ou son intÃ©gritÃ© physique. Tel n'est pas le cas lors de simples menaces de poursuites pÃ©nales, y compris pour dÃ©seriion . Article 26 de la Convention : 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 (Convention article 3), les recours sans effet suspensif de l'exÃ©cution ne peuvent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme efficaces . S'agissam d'une personne qui se plaint de son expulsion parce qu'elle prÃ©tend ltre un ressortissant national (Protocole N article 3 par . 1), les recours doivent Ã©tre Ã©puisÃ©s mÃªme s'ils sont sans effet suspensif de l'ezpulsion .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 266)
According to his own statements the applicant was born in 1937 in Yugoslavia of a German speaking family who allegedly opted for Crerrnan dationaliry during World War Q . During his military service he fled to Austria in 1954 . He arrived in full uniform in a hijacked Yugoslav military aeroplane . In 1956 he came for the first time to the Federal Republic of Cxmuny, but was expelled to Austria . In 1962 he retumed as an illegal entrant and has since then been living in the Federal Republic of Cxrmany . zie has a considerable criminal record and was serving a prison sentence at the prison of Butzbach at the time of filing this application . The ap licant has tried to btain polit cal asylum in the Federal Republic o f Germany, or alternatively, to be recognised as a Gerrnan citizen on the ground of his being a displaced person of t3erman ethnic origin (Vertriebener) . The asylum proceedings have been terminated . Following the refusal of asylum by the Zirndorf office in 1974 ahe applicant brought an Administrative Court action which was finally dismissed in 1979 . The proceedings concerning the recognition as Gernum citizen are still pending . The first application made in 1968 was refused by the City of Offenbach, and the applicant's objections against this decision to the higher administrative authority (Regierungspriisidium) of Darmstadt were dismissed on 2 May 1973 . On 16 May 1973, the applicant challenged this decision by an Administrative Court action which the Darmstadt Administrative Court dismissed only on 24 November 1982 . The judgment was served on the applicant on 19 January 1983 . On 14 February 1983 the applicant appealed from this judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal at Kassel where the case is still pending .
Already on 19 January 1978 the City of Frankfurt had issued an expulsion order against the applicant . The applicant's objections against the expulsion order were rejected by the higher administrative authority of Darmstadt on 16 June 1983 . On 18 July 1983 the applicant then seized the Frenkfurt Administrative Court with an action against this decision . The action is still pending in first instance . The above expulsion order of 19 January 1978 was originally declared to be immediately enforceable, but it was not actually enforced pending ahe outcome of the asylum proceedings . After the final refusal of political asylum the applicant was, on 4 December 1979, ordered to leave the country . His application to give his remedies against the expulsion order suspensive effect was rejected by the Frankfurt Administrative Court on 17 March 1980 . This decision was later confirrtied by the Kassel Adminisarative Court of Appeal, on 10 September 1981 .
As the applicant did not comply with the above order of 4 December 1979, he was detained between 7 and 30 May 1980 in a view to his expulsion . He was released in view of his promise to leave the country voluntarily (15 June 1980) . The applicant states in this context that he was actually prevented from leaving the Federal Republic as the Gennan authorities refused him an aliens' passport and the Yugoslav consulate would not issue a passport to him but only a document allowing his return to Yugoslavia . On I March 1983 the Dist rict Court of Butzbach ordered the applicant's detention with a view to his expulsion, for a period of three months following release from prison (i .e . as from 20 December 1983) . The applicant's appeal against this decision was rejected by the Regional Court of Giessen on 18 March 1983, and his further appeal was rejected by the Frankfurt Court of Appeal on 11 April 1983 . A constitutional complaint concerning this detention order was rejected on 10 June 1983 . The Federal Constitutional Court considered that the detention order could not be challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that there might exist obstacles to actually carrying out the underlying expulsion order . The applicant subsequently sought to obtain legal protection in this respect in the Administr ative Courts, as suggested by the Federal Constitutional Court in its above decision . To this effect he applied both to the Frankfurt Administrative Court to restore the suspensive effect of his remedies against the expulsion order (application of 25 August 1980 which was rejected on 12 November 1983) and to the Darmstadt Administrative Court with a view to give the proceedings cohcerning his recognition as a Gertnan citizen suspensive effect against the expulsion order (application of 3 May 1983, rejected by a decision of 4 October 1983) . On 30 May 1983 the Hessian Minister of the Inte ri or declared that there existed no obstacles against the applicant's expulsion towards Yugoslavia . On 23 August 1983 the local authority of Friedberg informed the Darmstadt Administrative Court that it intended to deport the applicant to Yugoslavia as there were no reasons for the applicant to fear any political persecution in that country . The applicant was actually deponed to Yugoslavia on 29 December 1983 .
THE LAW (Extract ) 1 . The applicant complained of his imminent deportation to Yugoslavia which has in the meantime been executed . He claimed essentially that the intended deportation was contrary to the Convention on the one hand because he had to fear political persecution and ill-treatment in Yugoslavia, and on the other because in his view he was entitled to be recognised as a German citizen .
2 . Under the Commission's constant case-law the first issue falls to be considered under Article 3 of the Convention . While the Convention does not guarantee aliens a right to be granted political asylum nor a right to remain in the territory of one of the Contracting States, the Commission has nevertheless admined that measures of the aliens' police such as a deportation may under certain circumstances amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to the above provision if the person concerned is thereby put in a situation where he is likely to incur risks for his life and physical integrity in the country of destination . The applicant claimed that such dangers in fact existed for him in Yugoslavia, and therefore his above complaint cannot be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention . The Commission observes, however, that the only applicable provision in this respect appears to be Article 3 of the Convention while the other provisions invoked by the applicant are wholly irrelevant . Now it must be noted that the applicant in the present case has not exhausted all remedies available to him under the German legal system to challenge the deportation order . However, the authorities were not prepared to grant these remedies suspensive effect, and insofar as the feared treatment in Yugoslavia is concerned the applicant could therefore indeed suffer irreparable damage if his allegations were correct . In this respect, the remedies in question were not effective, and the applicant was accordingly absolved from exhausting them before addressing himself to the Commission . The applicant's above complaint therefore cannot be Â«jected under Article 27 para . 3 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 26 . Concerning the substance of this complaint, the Commission finds, however, that by the time of the applicant's actual deportation in view of his very serious criminal record it had become sufficiently clear that there was no real danger of his political persecution or ill-treatment in Yugoslavia . The applicant's arguments in this respect were examined by the authorities both in the asylum proceedings and also in the deportation proceedings themselves, in particular in connection with the issue of suspensive effect . It was found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate by concrete arguments based on his personal situation why his life or physical integrity should be in serious danger in Yugoslavia . In particular he had not submitted any evidence that there existed at present a political persecution of the Gerrnan ethnic minority in Yugoslavia involving inhuman treatment of the members of this community . The Government have also referred to their knowledge from other files that there was no indication of the existence of such practices . The Commission accepts that in the circumstances the authorities could reasonably assume that the applicant would not be subjected to inhuman treatment on account of his German ethnic origin . The mere eventuality of a criminal prosecution, even for military desertion, is not as such sufficient to warrant a finding that the deportation in question was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention . The applicant's above complaint therefore turns out to be manifesdy ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
3 . As regards the applicant's further complaint that the depo rt ation was inadmissible because he had a ri ght to be recognised as a German citizen, it falls to be considered under Article 3 para . I of Protocol NÂ° 4 to the Convention . This provision stipulates that no one shall be expelled from the territory of the State of which he is a national . The Commission notes, however, that the applicant so far has never been recognised as a Gemtan citizen and that his remedies in this respect are still pending before the Hessian Administrative Court of Appeal . Although suspensive effect on the actual execution of the deportation order was refused also in relation to these proceedings, the situation conceming the effectiveness of these remedies is nevertheless not the same as that concerning the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention . Unlike the latter complaints there is no danger of irreparable damage . If the proceedings should in the last resort lead to a finding that the applicant is in fact a German citizen, he will have the right to enter the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, and it must further be assumed that he wiil then also be able to challenge the consequences of his deportation . In these circumstances the applicant cannot be absolved from exhausting the remedies in question because they are likely to bring about an effective redress of his above complaint . As the conditions as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 26 of the Convention are not met at present, this complaint must be rejected under Anicle 27 para . 3 of the Convention .
(TRADUCTION ) EN FAIT (Extrait) Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare Ãªtre nÃ© en 1937 en Yougoslavie d'une famille gerroanophone qui aurait optÃ© pour la nationalitÃ© allemande durant la seconde guerre mondiale . Pendant son service militaire, il s'enfuit en Autriche en 1954 . 11 arriva en unifonne dans un avion militaire yougoslave qu'il avait dÃ©toumÃ© . En 1956, il se rendit pour la premiÃ¨re fois en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne mais en fut expulsÃ© vers l'Autriche . En 1962, il y revint clandestinement et il y vit depuis lors . II a un casier judiciaire trÃ¨s chargÃ© et purgeait une peine de prison Ã Butzbach au moment de l'introduction de sa requ2te .
En RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, le requÃ©rant tenta d'obtenir l'asile politique ou, Ã dÃ©faut, de se voir reconnaitre la nationalitÃ© allemande comme personne dÃ©placÃ©e d'origine ethnique allemande (Vertriebener) . . La procÃ©dure de demande d'asile est tenninÃ©e : aprÃ¨s le refus opposÃ© par le Bureau de Zimdorf en 1974, le requÃ©rant se pourvut devant un t ri bunal administratif, qui rejeta sa demande Ã titre dÃ©fmilif en 1979 .
La procÃ©dure en reconnaissance de la citoyennetÃ© allemande est toujours pendante . La premiÃ¨re demande, faite en 1968, fut repoussÃ©e par la municipalitÃ© d'Offenbach et l'opposition Ã cette dÃ©cision formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant devant l'instance administrative supÃ©rieure (RegierungsprÃ¢sidium) de Darmstadt fut Ã©galement Ã©cartÃ©e le 2 mai 1973 . Le 16 mai 1973, le requÃ©rant contesta cette dÃ©cision devant le tribunal administratif de Darmstadt, qui ne le dÃ©bouta que le 24 novembre 1982 . Le jugement fut signifiÃ© au requÃ©rant le 19 janvier 1983 et le 14 fÃ©vrier, l'intÃ©ressÃ© interjeu appel devant la cour d'appel administrative de Kassel, oÃ¹ l'affaire est toujours pendante . DÃ¨s le . 19 janvier 1978, la municipalitÃ© de Francfo rt avait Ã©mis un arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion cont re le requÃ©rant . L'opposition Ã cet arrÃªtÃ© formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant fut rejetÃ©e par les se rv ices administratifs de Darmstadt le 16 juin 1983 . Le 18 juillet 1983, le requÃ©rant saisit alo rs le tribunal administratif de Francfort , devant lequel l'action est toujours en premiÃ¨re instance . L'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion Ã© mis le 19 janvier 1978 avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© immÃ©diatement exÃ©cutoire, mais il y eut en fait sursis Ã l'exÃ©cution en attendant l'issue de la procÃ©dure de demande d'asile . L'asile ayant Ã© tÃ© refusÃ©, le requÃ©rant reÃ§ut le 4 dÃ©cembre 1979 l'ordre de quitter le pays . Sa demande tendant Ã confÃ©rer un effet suspensif Ã ses recou rs fut rejetÃ©e p ar le tri bunal administratif de Francfo rt le 17 mars 1980 . La cour d'appel administrative de Kassel confirma ce refus le 10 septembre 1981 . Comme le requÃ©ram n'obtempÃ©rait pas Ã l'arrÃªtÃ© du 4 dÃ©cembre 1979, il fut incarcÃ©rÃ© du 7 au 30 mai 1980 en vue de son expulsion, puis libÃ©rÃ© contre promesse de qui tter spontanÃ©ment le pays ( avant le 15 juin 1980) . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clara Ã cet Ã©g ard qu'il fut en fait empÃªchÃ© de qui tter la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale, car les autoritÃ©s allemandes lui refusaient un passepo rt pour Ã©trange rs et le consulat de Yougoslavie ne voulait pas lui dÃ©livrer un passepo rt mais seulement un document auto ri sant son retour en Yougoslavie . Le 1â¢ 1 ma rs 1983, le tribunal rÃ©gional de Butzbach ordonna l'inc arcÃ©ration du requÃ©rant en vue de son expulsion pour une nouvelle pÃ© ri ode de trois mois aprÃ¨s sa sonie de p rison (c'est-Ã -dire Ã pa rt ir du 20 dÃ©cembre 1983) . Le recou rs formÃ© par le requÃ©rant contre cette dÃ©cision fut repoussÃ© par le tribunal rÃ©gional de Giessen le 18 mars 1983 et un nouveau recours rejetÃ© p ar la cour d'appel de Francfort le 11 avri l 1983 . Un recou rs constitutionnel concernant le mandat de dÃ©pÃ´t fut rejetÃ© le 10 juin 1983 . La Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale estima que le mandat ne pouvait pas Ã©t re contestÃ© pour inconstitutionnalitÃ© au motif qu'il existerait des obstacles Ã l'exÃ©cution effective de l'arrÃªtÃ© d'expulsion qui en Ã©tait Ã l'ori gine . . - 267 -
Le requÃ©rant demanda ultÃ©rieurement la protection des juridictions administratives, comme le lui sugÃ©rait la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale dans l'arrÃªt prÃ©citÃ© . A cet effet, il s'adressa d'une part au tribunal administratif de Francfort pour rÃ©tablir l'effet suspensif de ses recours contre l'arrÃ©tÃ© d'expulsion (dentande du 25 aotlt 1980 rejetÃ©e le 12 novembre 1983), d'autre part au tribunal administratif de Darmstadt, pour donner Ã la procÃ©dure en reconnaissance de la nationalitÃ© allemande un effet suspensif de l'arrÃ©tÃ© d'expulsion (demande du 3 mai 1983 rejetÃ©e par dÃ©cision du 4 octobre 1983) . Le 30 mai 1983, le ministre de l'intÃ©rieur de Hesse dÃ©clara qu'il n'existai t aucun obstacle Ã l'expulsion du requÃ©rant vers la Yougoslavie . Le 23 aoÃ»t 1983, la municipalitÃ© de Friedberg informa le tribunal administratif de Darmstadt qu'elle se proposait d'expulser le requÃ©rant vers la Yougoslavie puisqu'il n'y avait pas de raison de redouter pour lui des persÃ©cutions politiques dans ce pays . Le requÃ©rant fut effectivement expulsÃ© en Yougoslavie le 29 dÃ©cembre 1983 .
EN DROIT (Extrait) 1 . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint de son expulsion imminente vers la Yougoslavie (expulsion qui a eu lieu depuis lors) . Il prÃ©tend essentiellement que l'expulsion envisagÃ©e Ã©tait contraire Ã la Convention, d'une part, parce qu'il y avait lieu de redouter des persÃ©cutions politiques et des mauvais traitements en Yougoslavie et, d'autre part, parce qu'il avait, selon lui, le droit de se voir reconnaitre la nationalitÃ© allemande . 2 . Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Commission, la premiÃ¨re question doit @tre envisagÃ©e au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention . Certes, la Convention ne garantit pas aux Ã©trangers le droit de se voir accorder l'asile politique ni celui de demeurer sur le territoire de l'un des Etats contractants, mais la Commission a cependant admis que des mesures prises Ã l'encontre des Ã©trangers - l'expulsion par exemple - peuvent, dans certaines conditions, constituer un traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant contraire Ã l'article 3 si l'intÃ©ressÃ© se trouve placÃ© dans une situation mettant en danger sa vie ou son intÃ©gritÃ© physique dans le pays de destination . Le requÃ©tant a prÃ©tendu que de tels risques existaient en fait pour lui en Yougoslavie et son grief ne peut dÃ¨s lors pas Ãªtre rejetÃ© comme incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention . La Commission remarque cependant que la seule disposition applicable Ã cet Ã©gard semble Ãªtre l'article 3 de la Convention, les autres articles invoquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant n'ayant absolument rien Ã voir en l'espÃ©ce .
La Commission doit relever Ã prÃ©sent que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© tous les recours Ã sa disposition en droit allemand pour contester l'affÃ©tÃ© d'expulsion . Cependant, les autoritÃ©s n'Ã©taient pas disposÃ©es Ã accorder l'effet suspensif Ã ces recours et, pour ce qui est du traitement qu'il redoutait de subir en Yougoslavie, le requÃ©rant pouvait dÃ¨s lors souffrir un prÃ©judice irrÃ©parable si ses allÃ©gations s'avÃ©raient exactes . Sur ce point, les recours en question n'Ã©taient pas efficaces . Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait dÃ¨s lors dispensÃ© de les exercer avant de s'adresser Ã la Commission . Le grief du requÃ©rant ne saurait donc Ãªtre rejetÃ© en vertu de l'anicle 27 par . 3 de la Convention lu en liaison avec l'article 26. Sur le fond, la Commission estime qu'au moment de l'expulsion effective du requÃ©rant en raison de son casier judiciaire trÃ¨s chargÃ©, il Ã©tait assez clair qu'il ne courait aucun risque d'Ãªtre politiquement persÃ©cutÃ© ou maltraitÃ© en Yougoslavie . Les autoritÃ©s allemandes ont examinÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard les arguments avancÃ©s par le requÃ©rant tant dans la procÃ©dure de demande d'asile que dans la procÃ©dure d'expulsion ellemÃªme, en liaison notanunent avec la question de l'effet suspensif . Il a Ã©tÃ© trouvÃ© que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas apportÃ© la preuve, par des arguments de fait fondÃ©s sur sa situation personnelle, du risque grave censÃ© peser en Yougoslavie sur sa vie ou son intÃ©gritÃ© physique . Il n'a notamment produit aucun Ã©lÃ©ment montrant l'existence actuellement en Yougoslavie de persÃ©cutions politiques Ã l'encontre de la minoritÃ© ethnique allemande et pouvant comporter un traitement inhumain des membres de cette communautÃ© . Le Gouvernement a Ã©galement Ã©voquÃ© sa connaissance d'autres dossiers selon lesquels rien n'indique l'existence d'une telle pratique . la Commission admet que, dans ces conditions, les autoritÃ©s pouvaient raisonnablement penser que le requÃ©rant ne serait pas soumis Ã un traitement inhumain Ã©n raison de son origine allemande . La simple Ã©ventualitÃ© de poursuites pÃ©nales, mÃªme pour dÃ©sertion militaire, ne suffit pas en soi Ã justifier la conclusion que l'expulsion en question est contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . Le grief formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant s'avÃ¨re dÃ¨s lors manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27 par. 2 de la Convention . 3 . Quant au grief du requÃ©rant sur le caractÃ¨re inadmissible de son expulsion parce qu'il avait le droit de se voir reconnaitre la nationalitÃ© allemande, il doit Ãªtre examinÃ© au regard de l'article 3 par . I du Protocole No 4 Ã la Convention, qui stipule que nul ne peut Ãªtre expulsÃ© du territoire de l'Etat dont il est le ressortissant . I-a Commission relÃ¨ve cependant que, jusqu'Ã prÃ©sent, le requÃ©rant ne s'est jamais vu reconnaitre la nationalitÃ© allemande et qu'Ã cet Ã©gard, ses recours sont toujours pendants devant la cour d'appel administrative de Hesse . Certes, l'effet suspensif de l'exÃ©cution de l'arr@tÃ© d'expulsion a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ© aussi en ce qui conceme cette procÃ©dure, mais quant Ã l'efficacitÃ© de ces recours, la situation n'est cependant pas la mÃªme que pour les griefs tirÃ©s de l'article 3 de la Convention . Contrairement Ã ces demiers griefs en effet, il n'y a pas de risque de prÃ©judice irrÃ©parable . Si en dÃ©finitive, la procÃ©dure devait aboutir Ã la conclusion que le requÃ©rant est biÃ©n ressonisant allemand, il aurait alors le droit de revenir sur le territoire de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et on peut penser qu'il pourrait alors aussi contester les effet s
de son expulsion . Dans ces conditions, le requÃ©rant ne saurait Ã©tre dispensÃ© d'Ã©puiser les recours en question, puisqu'ils pourraient apport er un apaisement Ã son grief. La condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours intemes prÃ©vue Ã l'article 26 de la Convention n'Ã©tant pas remplie, le grief doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 par . 3 de la Convention .
- 270 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 10/12/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

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