Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised
as follows:

The applicant is an Australian citizen of Greek extraction, born in
1948. According to the applicant, he also possesses Greek nationality.
He is at present detained in prison at Matraville, New South Wales,

On 4 October 1968, the applicant lodged a previous application No.
3833/68 against Sweden. When lodging this application he was detained
in prison in Stockholm.

The applicant originally complained of his detention in the Federal
Republic of Germany pending extradition to Sweden. This complaint was,
however, withdrawn before the application was registered.

Having been extradited to Sweden, the applicant was, at a date not
indicated by him, sentenced for fraud by a Swedish court to six months'
imprisonment and expulsion (förvisning). It appears that the applicant
appealed to the Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) in Stockholm against the
expulsion order but not against his conviction and prison sentence. The
applicant subsequently withdrew his appeal as he did not consider that
he had any legal grounds on which he could challenge his expulsion.

On 4 October 1968, the applicant submitted that he would be
conditionally released from prison on 11 November 1968, and that he
would be expelled on the same day. He did not object to his expulsion
as such, but complained that he had been informed by the authorities
concerned that he would be deported to Australia, although he had no
wish to go there and had requested to be sent to Greece.

The applicant maintained that the relevant provisions of the Swedish
Aliens Act (utlänningslagen), which stipulate that a deportee shall be
primarily sent to his home country, are inconsistent with the
Convention and (Fourth) Protocol. In particular, he claimed that Sweden
had no right to ensure that he left Swedish territory. He also alleged
that, during the transport from Sweden, he would in fact be detained
contrary to Article 5 of the Convention as he would either be sent
under escort or come under the supervision of the purser of the
aircraft concerned.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant was apparently to be
expelled from Sweden before the Commission's next session, beginning
on 16 December 1968, the Secretary of the Swedish Government in
accordance with the established practice in similar cases of emergency
in order to draw the Government's attention to the situation.

On 4 November 1968, the Secretary was informed orally by the Head of
the Legal Department of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs that
representations had been made to the competent authority to postpone,
if possible, the expulsion of the applicant until after the
Commission's forthcoming session. In a letter of ??? November 1968, the
Ministry informed the applicant of the steps taken by the Ministry in
order to avoid the deportation being carried out before the Commission
had examined the application.

In a letter of 6 November 1968, the applicant stated that he wished to
withdraw his application to the Commission since the Swedish
authorities were now prepared to send him to Greece. It appeared that,
by then, the Australian Embassy in Stockholm had agreed to issue the
necessary travel documents and that the Greek Consulate had given the
applicant reason to believe that he would be allowed to enter Greece.
He had, however, been unofficially informed that the expulsion would
not take place while his application was pending before the Commission,
and advised to withdraw his application in order to avoid a further
period of detention pending deportation. In view of the fact that he
was thus allowed to go to Greece as he had requested, the applicant
stated that he had no interest in maintaining his application. The
Swedish Government was then informed of the applicant's proposed
On 13 December 1968, the Commission  decided to strike the application
off its list of cases in view of the applicant's withdrawal of the

On 3 January 1969, the applicant requested, however, that the
Commission should take up his case again and the present application
was accordingly registered on 13 January 1969.

The applicant submits that on 20 November 1969, he was taken from the
prison and brought to the Stockholm airport by two police officers who
told him that he was going to Greece. On arrival in Athens, a few hours
later, he was placed in the custody of the Greek police. The applicant
informed the officers of the Greek Customs Service that he was a Greek
national by birth according to the relevant provisions of the Greek
Nationality Code and that he wanted to stay in Greece, but they told
him that the Swedish escorting officers had informed them that he was
under extradition order and, therefore, Greek or not, he was forced by
virtue of this to go to the country named in the order. He further
alleges that, at the request of the Swedish officers, his papers were
kept from him while he was in the custody of the Greek police and that
this contributed to the refusal of the Greek authorities to allow him
to enter the country.

In this connection, the applicant refers to a letter of .. October
1968, from the Greek Acting Consul in Stockholm confirming that he was
a Greek national and informing him of the formalities required in order
to claim his Greek nationality. He was further told that in the
Consul's opinion, he could be admitted to Greece as long as he was in
possession of a valid Australian passport. The applicant also refers
to a letter from the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the same date
in reply to a letter addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister in which
the applicant had explained his position and reasons for wanting to go
to Greece. The applicant claims that, had he been able to contact the
Minister while at the airport, he would undoubtedly have been allowed
to stay once the facts were made known to him.

The applicant states that he was, however, held in custody for 24 hours
in Athens without being allowed to contact anybody. He was then
forcedly put on an aeroplane to Australia. For the first time he then
discovered that his ticket was issued for a journey Stockholm - Athens
- Sydney.

On arrival in Australia, the two Swedish police officers who had
escorted him, handed him over to the Australian police who were waiting
for him. According to the applicant, they had been informed a week in
advance of his estimated time of arrival.

The applicant alleges that the Swedish authorities acted illegally in
forcing him to go to Australia when, in the applicant's opinion, he had
written permission to enter Greece. They were further aware of the fact
that he had already signed papers before the Australian Consul in
Stockholm renouncing his Australian citizenship. Accordingly, the
Swedish authorities violated "internationally recognised agreements
which prescribe that in a third country, a man who holds two
nationalities will be recognised as holding only one, the nationality
to which he is the closest".

He further maintains that undue pressure was brought upon him to
withdraw his previous application since he was threatened with loss of
remission time unless he withdrew it. He claims that he withdrew the
case only after the Swedish authorities had promised that he would then
immediately be deported to Greece.

The applicant complains that, although his application was proceeding
before the Commission until it was struck off the list on 13 December
1968, he was already deported on 20 November. He contends that, if he
had been given more time, he could have made sure through the Greek
Government and the Commission that he would actually be going to Greece
as he had been promised.

The applicant claims compensation to the amount of 500 dollars for loss
of savings while he is being held in custody in Australia and the cost
of an economy class seat on a flight from Sydney to Athens.


Whereas, the applicant's complaints relate to his expulsion from Sweden
after conviction by the competent Swedish Court;

Whereas he states that the subject of his application is not the order
to expel him as such but the decision of the Swedish authorities,
pursuant to the expulsion order, to send him to Australia and also the
detention to which he was subject during the execution of this decision
and after leaving Sweden;

Whereas it is first to be observed that, according to constant
jurisprudence of the Commission, the right of an individual to reside
in, or not to be expelled from a particular country of which he is not
a national, is not as such among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by
the Convention (see for example decisions Nos. 238/56 - X. v. Denmark,
Yearbook, Vol. I, p. 205 and 3040/67 - X. v. Federal Republic of
Germany , Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, p. 133);

Whereas, furthermore, the Commission notes that the restriction of the
applicant's liberty in the flight from Stockholm to Athens and again
from Athens to Australia was in execution of the expulsion order;

Whereas the commission is satisfied that this restriction constituted
a detention within the meaning of Article 5 paragraph (1) (f)
(Art. 5-1-f), of the Convention (Application No. 1983/63 - X. v.
Netherlands, Yearbook, Vol. VIII, p. 228);

Whereas, in examining the complaints relating to the applicant's
detention in Athens and the refusal of permission to enter Greece, the
Commission has also had regard to the provisions of Article 3 of the
Fourth Protocol (P4-3) to the Convention which stipulates that no one
shall be expelled from or deprived of the right to enter the territory
of which he is a national; whereas, in this connection, the Commission
considers that it has not been clearly established that the applicant
is a Greek national; whereas even assuming that he could claim such
nationality, it is to be observed that his detention in Athens and the
refusal to permit him to enter Greece were measures for which the Greek
authorities were solely responsible; whereas this application is not
directed against Greece, nor has the Greek Government, in fact,
recognised the Commission's competence to receive petitions under
Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention; whereas, accordingly, the
applicant's detention and subsequent forced departure from Greece
cannot constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Fourth Protocol
(P4-3) for which the Swedish authorities could be held responsible;

Whereas, it follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the