Application No. 12468/86
                         by Annie and Robert RHODES
                         against Denmark

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 3 March 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
                  C.A. NØRGAARD
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

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

        Having regard to the application introduced on 2 October 1986
by Annie and Robert Rhodes against Denmark and registered on 7 October
1986 under file N° 12468/86;

        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

        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.

        The first applicant is an Australian citizen, born in 1938.
The second applicant is a citizen of the United States of America,
born in 1941.  At the time of the introduction of the application they
were living in Copenhagen, Denmark.  They are both members of the
Church of Scientology.  Before the Commission they are represented by
Mr.  Mourad Oussedik and Mrs.  Brigitte Bouvier, lawyers practising in
Paris, France.

        The applicants came to Denmark in 1975 and they were initially
given one year residence permits which were renewed by the Ministry of
Justice each year.  The applicants have one child born in 1981.

        The applicants' application for a further renewal of their
residence permits was rejected by the Aliens Supervisory Board
(Tilsynet med Udlaendinge) on 12 May 1982.  Both applicants appealed
against the decision to the Ministry of Justice.  On 28 June 1985,
however, the Ministry of Justice rejected the applicants' appeal and
they were requested to leave Denmark no later than 1 September 1985.

        The applicants did not comply with this request.  Instead, on
12 September 1985, the applicants lodged a complaint with the
parliamentary Ombudsman.  For this reason the Ministry of Justice by
letter of 11 November 1985 postponed the deadline for leaving the
country until further notice.

        Having examined the case, which also concerned other members of
the Church of Scientology, the Ombudsman in his report of 6 March 1986
found no reason to criticise the decision taken.  Regarding the
applicants in the case which is now before the Commission, the
Ombudsman suggested that they be given at least one month to prepare
their departure.  Accordingly, the Ministry of Justice decided on
11 March 1986 that the applicants should leave the country on 10 April
1986 at the latest.

        Due to the applicants' personal circumstances the Ministry of
Justice on 10 April 1986 extended the time-limit for leaving the
country until 1 August 1986.

        On 2 June 1986 the applicants submitted to the Directorate for
Aliens (Direktoratet for Udlaendinge) a request to have the Ministry
of Justice's administrative decision concerning their residence
permits brought before the courts in accordance with Section 52 of the
Aliens Act (Udlaendingeloven) which provides for a special procedure
whereby an alien has the right to have certain specific decisions
concerning residence permits and expulsion set out in this section
brought before the court by the Directorate for Aliens at the request
of the alien concerned.

        In July 1986, however, the Directorate for Aliens informed the
applicants that their case could not be brought before the courts
according to the Aliens Act.

        The applicants did not institute proceedings in the High Court
(Østre Landsret) against the Ministry of Justice in accordance with
their constitutional rights set out in Section 63 of the Danish
Constitution (Danmarks Riges Grundlov).


COMPLAINTS

        The applicants invoke Articles 6 para. 1, 8 and 11 in
conjunction with Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention as well as
Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

        Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicants
complain that, although they could bring a case before the High Court,
this remedy could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of
Article 6 para. 1 since this action had no suspensive effect.
Regarding the applicants' complaints, they did not therefore have at
their disposal an impartial tribunal which could, in a fair hearing,
determine the civil rights which allegedly were at stake.

        The applicants also complain under Article 8 of the Convention
that the decisions rejecting their application for residence permits
violate their right to respect for their family life.  They came to
Denmark in 1975 and the Government's decisions are without
motivation.  They have not been found guilty of any criminal offence
or otherwise acted in a way which could allow the application of
Article 8 para. 2.  The violation under Article 8 is particularly grave
since they have a child born in Denmark and with no ties with any
other country.

        In conjunction with Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention the
applicants furthermore invoke Article 11 alleging that the Church of
Scientology in Denmark is one of only four mother churches of the
Church of Scientology and the existence of this religious association
constitutes the very reason for their settling in Denmark.  The
departure of the applicants from Denmark would rupture the long-
standing links with their numerous friends united in this association.

        Finally, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 the applicants
allege that the motives behind the refusal to renew the residence
permits were merely to get rid of persons belonging to the Church of
Scientology.  The measure taken should therefore be considered as
collective expulsion of the applicants since a large number of their
friends also belonging to the Church of Scientology have likewise been
requested to leave Denmark.


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 2 October 1986 and
registered on 7 October 1986.

        On 13 July 1987 the Commission declared inadmissible an
application concerning 17 other members of the Church of Scientology
who had been requested to leave Denmark under circumstances similar
to those of the present applicants (No. 12097/86, Dec. 13.7.87,
unpublished).

        On 29 September 1987 the applicants were requested to inform
the Commission whether they, in the light of the above decision,
intended to pursue their application further.  The Commission,
however, did not receive any reply to this request.  Furthermore, the
Commission observes that despite reminders sent to the applicants on
29 October 1987, 18 November 1987 and 21 December 1987 (twice by
registered mail) the applicants have not resumed contact with the
Commission and thus failed to provide the information requested by the
Commission.


REASONS FOR THE DECISION

        In the circumstances described above the Commission considers
that the applicants must be regarded as having lost interest in their
application.  Furthermore the Commission finds that there are no
reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the
Convention which necessitate a further examination of the case.

        For these reasons, the Commission


        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES


Secretary to the Commission          Acting President to the Commission





     (H. C. KRUGER)                             (J. A. FROWEIN)