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

              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  J. A. FROWEIN
                  M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  B. KIERNAN
                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J. C. SOYER
                  H. G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             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 12 June 1985 by
L.B. against the Netherlands and registered on 28 June 1985
under file No. 11619/85;

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 applicant,
may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Moroccan citizen, born on 1 January 1956 and at
present residing at Amsterdam.  He is represented by Mrs. M. D. van
Aller, a lawyer practising at Amsterdam.

In January 1975 the applicant illegally entered the Netherlands and on
8 August 1975 he started working at a restaurant, where he has been
employed since.

In a judgment of 22 May 1980, the applicant was convicted by the
police magistrate (Politierechter) of Amsterdam of a criminal offence
during the Queen's coronation on 30 April 1980.  He was sentenced to
four months' imprisonment, of which two months were conditional.

On 13 August 1981, the applicant was informed that his employer was
eligible for a permit to employ him in accordance with the
transitional regulation (Overgangsbepaling) of the Foreign Workers
Labour Act (Wet Arbeid Buitenlandse Werknemers).  This permit was
granted on 2 September 1981.

On 19 August 1981, the applicant's request for a residence permit was
rejected because he had come to the Netherlands without a provisional
residence permit and was therefore to be considered as an illegal
resident.  In addition, he had infringed public order by the above
criminal offence.  On the same day the applicant was detained, pending
expulsion.  Subsequently the applicant was released pending his
request for revision.  This request, which had been given suspensive
effect, was however rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice
(Staatssecretaris van Justitie) on 3 March 1982.

On 25 March 1982, thereupon, the applicant appealed this decision to
the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction (Afdeling Rechtspraak
van de Raad van State).  However, on 11 March 1985 his appeal was
rejected.   The Council considered, inter alia, that according to
section 11 of the Dutch Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet) a residence
permit could be refused in the general interest.  In view of the
prison sentence imposed on the applicant and the fact that the
applicant had been an illegal immigrant at least until he committed
the offence, there were reasonable grounds for the decision of the
authorities to refuse the applicant's request for a residence permit
in the general interest notwithstanding the permit promised to the
applicant's employer.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he will be expelled to Morocco because he
was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.  According to the
applicant, this is in contravention of the Dutch Aliens Circular
(Nederlandse Vreemdelingencirculaire) and he complains that he is
subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention because the expulsion forces him to leave
the country where he had settled down and had been working for three
years.  The applicant has also drawn attention to the fact that he is
involved in civil proceedings in the Netherlands concerning his claim
to a considerable sum of money.

Furthermore, the applicant complains that he is deprived of his
liberty and security of person because the policy of the Dutch
Government with regard to aliens forces him to return to Morocco.  He
alleges a violation of Article 5 (art. 5) of the Convention in this
respect.

Moreover, the applicant invokes Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention
because he is of the opinion that he is prosecuted twice for the same
offence because he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and is
also to be expelled to Morocco.

In addition, he complains that his expulsion to Morocco constitutes an
unjustified interference with his right to respect for private life.
He alleges that the policy of the Dutch Aliens Circular did not take
into account transitional regulations for illegal foreign workers and
that the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction in the absence
of further regulations took a wrong decision by forcing him to leave
the Netherlands and give up his possibilities to earn a living,
contrary to Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.

Finally, the applicant alleges that his right to marry has been
restricted because he wanted to marry a Dutch woman but is afraid that
the Dutch Government will consider this as a marriage of convenience.

THE LAW

1.  The applicant complains that he is subjected to inhuman and
degrading treatment.  He has alleged a violation of Article 3 (art. 3)
of the Convention which reads:

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

The Commission recalls that the expulsion or extradition of an
individual could, in certain exceptional cases, raise an issue under
the Convention and in particular under Article 3 (art. 3) when there are
serious reasons to believe that he could be subjected to treatment
prohibited by that provision in the State to which he is to be
deported (cf. e.g. Dec. No. 6315/73, 30.9.74, D.R. 1 p. 73).

However, the Commission is of the opinion that in the present case
there are no indications that the applicant's treatment in Morocco
would render his expulsion contrary to Article 3 (art. 3)
of the Convention.

This part of the application must therefore be rejected as manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of
the Convention.

2.      The applicant has further complained that he is deprived of
his liberty and security of person because the policy of the Dutch
Government forces him to return to Morocco and he has invoked
Article 5 para. 1, sub-para. f (art. 5-1-f) of the Convention which
provides inter alia:

"1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the
following cases and in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law: ...

(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent
his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a
person against whom action is being taken with a view to
deportation or extradition."

However, the Commission notes that a deportation order was made
against the applicant but that he has apparently not been arrested or
detained.

Consequently, this part of the application must also be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.      The applicant has also complained about a violation of
Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention because he was prosecuted twice
for the same offence.

Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention provides inter alia:

"1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of
any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law...."

The Commission has considered, in the context of previous cases
brought before it, the question of the applicability of Article 6
para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention to deportation matters.  The
Commission has held in these cases that a decision as to whether an
alien should be allowed to stay in a country is a discretionary act by
a public authority and that it does not involve as such the
determination of civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention (Dec. No. 8144/78, 2.5.79, D.R. 17
p. 157).

It follows that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention is not
applicable in the present case and that this part of the application
must therefore also be considered as incompatible ratione materiae
with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4.      Furthermore, the applicant has complained of an unjustified
interference with his right to respect for private life and he has
invoked Article 8 (art. 8) which reads as follows:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life,
his home and his correspondence."

The Commission, however, considers that even assuming that there was
an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private
life under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, this interference was
justified for one or more of the reasons set out in the second
paragraph of Article 8 (art. 8), such as "prevention of disorder".  In
this respect the Commission would emphasise the close connection
between the policy of immigration control and considerations
pertaining to public order (Dec. No. 8245/78, 6.5.81, D.R. 24 p. 98
ff).  It follows that this part of the application must also be
rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5.      Finally, the applicant has complained of a violation of his
right to marry.  He has alleged a violation of Article 12 (art. 12)
of the Convention which reads:

"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise
of this right."

The Commission, however, is of the opinion that the applicant has not
submitted any evidence capable of showing that his right to marry has
been restricted as a result of having to leave the Netherlands.

Consequently, the remainder of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2)
of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission

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