The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 May
1986, the following members being present:

                MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                   G. SPERDUTI
                   J.A. FROWEIN
                   F. ERMACORA
                   E. BUSUTTIL
                   G. JÖRUNDSSON
                   S. TRECHSEL
                   B. KIERNAN
                   A. WEITZEL
                   J.C. SOYER
                   H.G. SCHERMERS
                   H. DANELIUS
                   G. BATLINER
               Mrs G.H. THUNE
               Sir Basil HALL

Mr  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 11 June 1985 by
K.K. against the Netherlands and registered on 12 June
1985 under file No. 11569/85 ;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may
be summarised as follows:

The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1960 at Hozat, Turkey.  He
resides at Amsterdam, the Netherlands.  In the proceedings before the
Commission, he is represented by Mrs. E. Akkermans, a lawyer
practising at Rotterdam.

It appears that the applicant, who is a Kurd, was a founding member of
the association Halk-Der (a subdivision of the DEV-Genc) at Hozat and
was a member of the board of this association.  The applicant claims
that DEV-Genc is the forerunner of the student movement in Turkey.

In 1979, the applicant was apparently arrested by the police at Elarig
for having participated in a prohibited manifestation.  He claims that
he was detained for 23 days in the so-called quarter "1800", before he
was brought before a judge.  He was subsequently released for lack of
evidence.

The applicant has submitted that his organisation was not illegal
before the political events of 12 September 1980 but that it was not
allowed to engage in political activities.  After this date, however,
all members of the board were arrested by the military and only the
applicant managed to escape.

A brother of the applicant, who apparently belonged to a leftist
organisation, appears to have been killed by the police on 19 June
1982 during an attempt to arrest him.

It further appears that the applicant resided in the Federal Republic
of Germany, at Böblingen, from 13 July 1980 until 10 July 1984.  His
request for asylum was rejected in first instance and the applicant
claims that he did not await the result of a further request
(Folgeantrag) since he had no confidence in the German authorities and
that he therefore went to the Netherlands.

On 19 November 1984, the applicant requested either to be admitted to
the Netherlands as a refugee or to be given a residence permit based
on political asylum.

However, both requests were rejected on 3 May 1985 by the Deputy
Minister of Justice, who considered, inter alia, that the
trustworthiness of the applicant's declaration appeared doubtful since
he had not informed the authorities of his stay in the Federal
Republic of Germany before his arrival in the Netherlands but had
stated that he had come to the Netherlands direct from Turkey.  The
applicant had also failed to give an explanation for this false
information.  The Deputy Minister, moreover, considered that a letter
dated 30 July 1984 addressed to the applicant's father, which should
have demonstrated that the applicant was wanted by the authorities,
did not contain personal data which fitted the applicant.  In
addition, even assuming that the applicant would be a refugee, he
could have obtained adequate protection against refoulement to Turkey
in the Federal Republic of Germany which was the first country that
received him.

The applicant, thereupon, introduced a request for revision on 14 May
1985.  Since this request was not given suspensive effect, the
applicant initiated summary procedings (kort geding) before the
President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of
Amsterdam to obtain an order that he would not be expelled until a
decision had been taken on his request for revision.

On 9 July 1985, the representative of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees in the Netherlands informed the applicant's
lawyer that the applicant had failed to participate in the proceedings
before the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of Stuttgart. The
representative also noted that the applicant had given three, rather
different, explanations of why he feared persecution in Turkey, which
had raised doubts as to the sincerity of his request for asylum.

However, on 6 June 1985, the President rejected the applicant's
request since the applicant could have obtained adequate protection in
the Federal Republic of Germany, which had to be considered as the
country that first received him.

The President, moreover, considered that no facts or circumstances had
been demonstrated which would warrant the conclusion that the Deputy
Minister of Justice was acting in contravention of the law by not
granting suspensive effect to the applicant's request for revision
which had no reasonable prospect of success.

It appears that the applicant has since been in hiding.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he has reason to fear that he would be
subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention if he were to be expelled to Turkey.  He alleges that the
Netherlands authorities would thus be indirectly responsible for a
violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

The applicant contends that he engaged in the same political
activities as his brother who was killed by the police in 1982, and
claims that he, too, is being looked for by the Turkish authorities.
He has submitted a document dated 30 July 1984, from which it appears
that his father has been asked to disclose his whereabouts, and has
been threatened with prosecution if he failed to hand his son over to
the authorities.

The applicant has also submitted a declaration by the Amsterdam
division of Halk-Der that his life would be in danger if he were
expelled to Turkey.  In addition, he has submitted a declaration by
his cousin and another person, who reside in the Netherlands but
visited Turkey during their holidays, to the effect that the applicant
is being looked for by the military authorities and that his father
and relatives are regularly questioned as to his whereabouts.

The applicant also claims that the Kurdish population in Turkey has
recently been systematically oppressed both politically and
economically.

Finally, the applicant claims that he participated in political
activities against the Turkish Government in the Federal Republic of
Germany and took part in demonstrations organised by the Halk-Der.
Turkish journalists are known to take photographs of demonstrators
and, according to the applicant, the Turkish secret service is
certainly aware of his political activities in the Federal Republic of
Germany.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 11 June 1985 and registered on 12
June 1985.

On 12 June 1985, the President decided to indicate to the Netherlands
Government, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and
the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Commission to refrain
from expelling the applicant to Turkey until the Commission had had an
opportunity to examine the application during its session in July
1985.

On 14 June 1985, the Rapporteur requested the Netherlands Government
to provide information concerning the reasons for the decision to
expel the applicant to Turkey.

On 28 June 1985, the Government submitted the requested information,
and the applicant's comments in reply were submitted on 9 July 1985.

On 12 July 1985, the Commission decided not to renew the indication
under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure.  The Commission further
decided to invite the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 para.
2, sub-para. b of its Rules of Procedure to submit written
observations on admissibility and merits before 31 October 1985.

The Government's observations were submitted on 29 October 1985, the
applicant's observations in reply on 5 December 1985.

On 13 January 1986, the Government informed the Commission that they
would prefer to submit any further observations in writing.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.    The Government

(a)     Exhaustion of domestic remedies

The Netherlands Government take the view that domestic remedies as
referred to in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention have been
exhausted by the applicant.  His complaint relates to his deportation
from the Netherlands but the same complaint was rejected by the
President of the Regional Court of Amsterdam, giving judgment on an
application for summary proceedings on 6 June 1985.  This judgment was
confirmed upon appeal by the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam on 17
October 1985.

(b)     The facts

The Netherlands Government express serious doubts concerning the
veracity of the applicant's account of the facts.  These doubts have
since been strengthened by the facts stated in the further request for
asylum (Asylantrag-Nachfolgeantrag) of 18 September 1984 submitted to
the authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany on behalf of the
applicant.  The latter petition e.g. states a reason for leaving his
country which differs significantly from that which the applicant gave
to the aliens' police in Rotterdam two months later, as indicated in
the police report of 5 December 1984.

The Government submit that it has in the meantime become apparent that
the applicant has evaded the supervision of the aliens' police.  His
current place of residence in the Netherlands is unknown. If it should
be discovered in the near future, the applicant will be deported,
unless he chooses to leave the country voluntarily.

(c)     The law

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

The applicant believes that his deportation to Turkey by the
Netherlands Government would constitute a violation of Convention
because he says that he has reasons to fear treatment contrary to that
provision in that country.  In particular, the applicant claims that
he fears detention in what he calls one of the concentration camps for
Kurds or immediate imprisonment.

Quite apart from the aforementioned contradiction between the stories
told by the applicant in Germany and later in the Netherlands
concerning his flight, and disregarding the doubts to which this gives
rise as regards the veracity of the applicant's claims, it is evident
that the applicant left his country before the coup of 1980 and that
he was never convicted of the activities referred to in the
application.  On the contrary, he was released for lack of evidence.

In the view of the Netherlands Government there is no reason to
believe that the applicant has grounds to fear persecution on account
of his activities, particularly when one considers their limited
nature and extent and the time at which they took place.  The
representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in
The Hague likewise has doubts about the various stories concerning the
applicant's flight, in addition to which he criticises the applicant's
uncooperative attitude with regard to his application for asylum in
the Federal Republic of Germany.  On the grounds of the documents
submitted both by the applicant and by the Netherlands Government, the
representative of the UNHCR does not conclude that the applicant is a
refugee.

As regards the other facts mentioned by the applicant, the Netherlands
Government would observe that they are formulated in such general
terms that it is impossible to conclude from them that he has
justified reasons to fear persecution.

In the past the Commission has repeatedly found that, in exceptional
cases, deporting or extraditing a person to a particular state may
constitute treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
However, the person concerned must be able to show that he has serious
reasons (see X. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. No. 6315/73,
30.9.74, DR 1, p. 73) or substantial grounds (cf. Lynas v.
Switzerland Dec. No. 7317/75, 6.10.76, DR 6, p. 141) to fear such
treatment. Moreover, in cases in which an applicant claims that he is
in danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention there must be an objective danger to the
applicant (see Altun v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Appl. No.
10308/83, Decision of 3 May 1983, and Siddique v. the Netherlands,
Appl. No. 10633/83, Decision of 5 March 1984).  In the view of the
Netherlands Government, the applicant has not been able to show
convincingly enough either that such serious or substantial reasons
exist or that there is such an objective danger.

On the above grounds, the Netherlands Government take the view that
the application must be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

B.    The applicant

The applicant refers to his earlier submissions.  He draws attention
to the fact that the representative of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees in the Netherlands did not conclude that he
was not a refugee but only that some clarifications were required.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that he would be subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if he were expelled
to Turkey.  Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention provides that

"  No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. "

The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to clarify certain
contradictions in his respective statements to the authorities in the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands authorities.  In the
Commission's view, this creates doubts about the facts upon which the
applicant bases his affirmation that he might be subjected to
treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, if he were
expelled to Turkey.

Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant has
failed to substantiate his allegations about the risks he would run,
if expelled to Turkey.  In addition, the Commission does not find that
there are sufficient indications of a general nature which would lend
credence to the applicant's claim that he risks being subjected to
treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if expelled
to Turkey.

It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of
the Convention.

For these reason, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

   (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)