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

                      MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                          J. A. FROWEIN
                          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. F. MARTINEZ

                      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 2 October 1986 by
R.P against Sweden and registered on 7 October 1986 under file
No. 12440/86;

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 of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.

The applicant, Mr. R.P, is a Polish citizen, born in 1964.
The applicant is married to a Polish citizen.  They have a son, born
in September 1985.  At present they live in Gothenburg.

The applicant came to Sweden on 27 December 1984 to join his mother
who is married and living in Sweden.  The mother's husband regards the
applicant as his son and since 30 January 1985 the applicant calls
himself by his stepfather's family name.

The applicant had a permit to stay in Sweden from 7 November 1984 to
18 July 1985 on the ground of his family links.

On 31 March 1985 the applicant's future wife came from Poland to
Sweden with a visa for ninety days.  When she came to Sweden she
discovered that she was pregnant.  The applicant submits that he asked
for and was granted the right to marry in Sweden and the wife gave
birth to the child in Sweden.

On 1 June 1985 the couple married.  The wife submitted a request for
permission to stay and work in Sweden.

On 18 September 1985 the son was born.

On 31 January 1986 the National Board of Immigration (statens
invandrarverk) refused to grant the applicant and his wife permission
to stay any longer in Sweden, and ordered that they and their son be

The applicant appealed to the Government which rejected the appeal on
18 September 1986.

Since his birth the son has been under medical treatment and is soon
to undergo an operation.

The applicant states that the police has told them that they must
leave the country on 31 October 1986 at the latest.


The applicant submits that he risks a lenghty prison sentence for
desertion in Poland, since he went abroad when he was supposed to do
his military service.  He further alleges that, if he is expelled, his
family will be isolated from him and his wife would be obliged to take
care of the sick child on her own.

The applicant requests a quick decision in view of the imminent


The applicant, without invoking any specific Articles of the
Convention, complains of the expulsion order issued against him and
his family.  He submits inter alia that, if expelled to Poland, he
risks a lengthy prison sentence for desertion.  He also submits that
his family will be isolated from him and that his wife will be obliged
to take care of their sick son.

The Commission has examined the application in the light of Articles 3
and 8 (art. 3, art. 8) of the Convention.

It is established in the Commission's case-law that the Convention
does not guarantee to an alien the right to enter or to reside in a
particular country, nor a right not to be expelled from a particular
country (see eg. Dec. No. 9203/80, 5.5.81, D.R. 24, p. 239).  It is
true that the Commission has held that an expulsion may in exceptional
circumstances involve a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the
Convention, which prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment
and punishment, where there is a serious fear of treatment contrary to
Article 3 (art. 3) in the receiving State (see, inter alia
Dec. No. 7729/76, 17.12.76, D.R. 7, p. 164 at 172).

The Commission has also held that an issue may arise under Article 8
(art. 8)  of the Convention, which guarantees the right to respect for
family life, if a person is expelled from a country where close
members of his family are living (see inter alia, Dec. No. 8041/77,
15.12.77, D.R. 12, p. 197).

The Commission considers however that, even if the applicant should be
punished for desertion from the army and sentenced to imprisonment in
Poland, his expulsion from Sweden cannot be regarded as such treatment
as is prohibited by Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention.

As regards Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, the Commission
recalls that the applicant is a grown-up person with a family of his
own.  His expulsion will not lead to a separation from his wife and
son, who will be expelled together with the applicant.  The fact that
the applicant's mother lives in Sweden is not a sufficient ground for
finding that the applicant's expulsion will constitute an interference
with his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 (art. 8)
of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Commission finds that the application does not
disclose any appearance of a violation of Articles 3 or 8
(art. 3, art. 8) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission

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