Harron and Alayo v. Sweden
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application of HARRON and ALAYO v. SWEDEN
REF. NO:
ORIGIN: COMMISSION (Plenary)
TYPE: DECISION
PUBLICATION:
TITLE: HARRON and ALAYO v. SWEDEN
APPLICATION NO.: 28783/95
NATIONALITY: Ugandan
REPRESENTED BY: CAMERINI, Robert, lawyer, Stockholm
RESPONDENT: Sweden
DATE OF INTRODUCTION: 19950922
DATE OF DECISION: 19960307
APPLICABILITY:
CONCLUSION: Admissible
ARTICLES: 3
RULES OF PROCEDURE:
Rule 36 of the Commission's RulesLAW AT ISSUE:
STRASBOURG CASE-LAW:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 28783/95 by Ariko HARRON and Jessica ALAYO against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 March 1996, the following members being present: MM.S. TRECHSEL, President C.L. ROZAKIS E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK A. WEITZEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS Mrs. G.H. THUNE Mr.F. MARTINEZ Mrs. J. LIDDY MM.L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS M.P. PELLONPÄÄ B. MARXER M.A. NOWICKI I. CABRAL BARRETO I. BÉKÉS E. KONSTANTINOV D. SVÁBY G. RESS A. PERENIC C. BÎRSAN P. LORENZEN K. HERNDL 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 22 September 1995 by Ariko Harron and Jessica Alayo against Sweden and registered on 28 September 1995 under file No. 28783/95; Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 16 November 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 4 January 1996; Having deliberated; Decides as follows:THE FACTS
The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively. They are citizens of Uganda. Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. Robert Camerini, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant arrived in Sweden on 29 September 1991 and applied for political asylum the following day. He was joined by the second applicant on 17 May 1992, when she also applied for asylum. The first applicant gave the following statement in support of his application. He had been active in a political organisation, the Uganda People's Front/Uganda People's Army (UPF/UPA), since its establishment in 1987 engaged in a struggle against Government troops. Within the organisation, he had been responsible for the purchase, storing and transportation of weapons and ammunition. In February 1988, he had been arrested and ill-treated by the military police. He was released after having bribed a Government official. In August 1991, the military had uncovered an arms transport. Several participants had been arrested and assaulted. Two of them had died as a result of the injuries sustained. The first applicant had escaped. The military, informed of his involvement in the UPF/UPA, had searched for him and had also searched his home and office on several occasions. However, he had managed to avoid being arrested. After the second applicant had obtained a passport and a plane ticket for him in September 1991, he had left the country via Entebbe airport on 28 September. After his escape, he had been informed by the second applicant that the Ugandan authorities were still coming to their home to look for him. By phone on 18 January 1992, he had been told that the second applicant had been injured on one such occasion. The second applicant provided the Swedish immigration authorities with the following information. She had been a member of the Uganda People's Congress (UPC), an opposition party, since 1980. She first stated that the first applicant had been arrested and ill-treated by the military police in July/August 1991. In a later statement, she changed the date to July/August 1988. The first applicant had been released after having bribed a person in the prison where he was detained. In October 1991, after the first applicant had left the country, the military had again searched for him. The military had apprehended the second applicant and had questioned and sexually assaulted her for a period of three weeks. After some time, some UPC members had helped her to flee to her parents' home. At Christmas time 1991, the military had come to the parents' home and sexually assaulted the women of the family, including the second applicant. Thereafter, she had stayed at a UPC camp where, in January 1992, she had been injured during an attack by the military. She had left the country via Entebbe airport. Her passport had been obtained by the UPC. It was predated so as to avoid suspicions that she was fleeing. By decision of 5 April 1993, the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) rejected the asylum applications and ordered the applicants' expulsion. It called into question the credibility of the information provided by the applicants. It noted, inter alia, that the second applicant had given different dates for the first applicant's detention and that the applicants' statements regarding the second applicant's whereabouts and injury in January 1992 were contradictory. Having regard to the fact that the first applicant had used his own passport when leaving Uganda, the Board further found that his allegations concerning the Ugandan authorities' interest in him were considerably exaggerated. Moreover, his passport was issued in March 1991 and not, as alleged, in September 1991. With respect to the second applicant, the Board noted that her passport had been checked at departure and that it contained a tax clearance stamp dated 10 April 1992. The Board, therefore, did not believe that she had left from Entebbe airport. The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden). They maintained the statements given to the Immigration Board. In addition, the first applicant submitted a statement in which he described the treatment he had allegedly received in two military prisons in Uganda after his arrest by the military police in 1988. The statement read, inter alia, as follows: "... [W]hilst in Mbuya barracks, I was led to an interrogation room where I was asked many questions ... and was pushed to another room where severe torture took me by surprise. [I was] ordered to sit down. Immediately, the ropes were fastened to my legs with the hand lever. I was then raised upside down like a cow ready to be skinned. They bounced me to the wall while others were busy asking me queries randomly. Due to the legs and head injuries sustained from the torture exercise, which was always done twice a day for about three days, I was then transferred to another prison called Basiima House, which is the headquarters for intelligence service and is located a few kilometres from Mbuya barracks. ... In the morning, I was called out for an investigation, taken to a room and before I entered I was told to leave my clothes by the doorway. In this room I was told to sit on one hollow chair and it was positioned such that I sat in a squat. Two men later came and fastened me on to it. Under the chair was a hot plate which they turned on and the interrogation began. [Whenever] I screamed out due to the heat, they would tell me to co-operate and tell them the true information, but when I failed to do as requested they had to continue with the exercise. ... On the second day, when I was taken to the same room, one of the soldiers lit his cigarette and burnt me on the left hand wrist and fingers while the plate was heating my private parts. He went on and put the wire on top of the hot plate and later used it for burning me on the thigh and foot. ... [T]his exercise continued until the ransom of money (bribe) was paid and on the day it was paid I was still taken to the torture room where I was given some strokes and finally twisted my right hand and cut it with a sharp knife. Then I was later freed but with a lot of threats on my life. ..." The applicant further stated that, a year later, his uncle had been tortured and shot to death by army officers who had discovered that he was delivering ammunition to the rebels. In support of their allegations that they had been subjected to torture and various other forms of ill-treatment, the applicants submitted several medical certificates to the Appeals Board. In opinions dated 6 and 19 October 1993, Dr Erik Ståhl, a specialist in forensic medicine at the Centre for Torture Survivors (CTD) at the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, stated that the applicants had healed scar formations on different parts of their bodies which could originate from injuries sustained in 1988 (the first applicant) and 1991 (the second applicant). The location and appearance of the scars corresponded well with the first applicant's allegation that he had been beaten, burnt and cut with different objects and the second applicant's statement that she had been punched and beaten with different objects. Dr Ståhl concluded that torture/ill-treatment may well have occurred as described by the applicants. Before Dr Ståhl gave his opinions, the applicants had been examined at the CTD on several occasions. As regards the first applicant, a certificate prepared by Dr Sten W. Jakobsson, the chief physician at the CTD, on 19 October 1993 stated that he suffered greatly from a very serious depression which originated in his experiences in Uganda and the risks facing him upon return. Dr Jakobsson concluded that the first applicant was very credible and that there was a very high probability that he had been tortured in Uganda. A further certificate concerning the second applicant had been prepared by Dr Hans Peter Søndergaard, a specialist in psychiatric diseases at the CTD, on 26 October 1993. He stated that the second applicant had claimed to have been raped and ill-treated by members of the armed forces, on some occasions in front of the applicants' two children. According to Dr Søndergaard, she suffered, as a result of this treatment, from a severe post-traumatic stress syndrome and was in need of medical care. She could not be deported due to her state of health. On 3 June 1994 the Appeals Board upheld the Immigration Board's decision. It stated that the medical certificates were based on the applicants' own statements and that, in the light of the partly contradictory information supplied by the applicants, the injuries discovered could just as well have originated in another way. Moreover, the certificates did not support the first applicant's allegation that his scrotum had been burnt. The Appeals Board concluded that it had not been shown that the applicants had been subjected to the alleged treatment. On 30 May 1995 the applicants lodged a new application with the Appeals Board and requested that the expulsion order be stayed. They submitted several documents which, allegedly, they had not been able to obtain before. In a letter of 26 November 1991 addressed to the Chief of Combatant Operations of the Ugandan army, the National Resistance Army (NRA), Mr Patrick Karejeya, Director of Intelligence of the NRA, asked for help to apprehend the first applicant, who had been identified as the leader of the arms smuggling operations uncovered in August and September 1991. In a letter of 16 March 1994, the assistant managing director of the applicant's company asked the company's lawyers to take action against the illegal occupation by the police of the company's premises. The director stated that the reason for the occupation appeared to be the political activities of the first applicant. In a subsequent letter of 22 August 1994, the lawyers informed the first applicant of the occupation and stated that, according to reliable sources, he was still wanted on charges of arms smuggling. As he would face arrest and persecution upon return to Uganda, he was advised not to return. According to an NRA document of 1 June 1994, the first applicant was still wanted on account of his political activities. The applicants further submitted a letter of 31 August 1994 from Rt. Rev. Bishop Geresom Ilukor of the Church of Uganda and an undated letter from Mr M. Obwanga'moi, the Head of the Department of Veterinary Physiological Sciences at Makerere University, Kampala. These letters confirmed the applicants' allegations concerning their activities in Uganda and their experiences of torture and ill-treatment. Bishop Ilukor further stated that the first applicant's father had been arrested, tortured and killed by the Government after it came into power in 1986, that the whereabouts of the second applicant's younger sister were unknown after she had been abducted by soldiers at the end of 1992 and that the second applicant's parents had fled to Kenya together with the applicants' children after repetitious attacks on them by soldiers. According to Mr. Obwanga'moi, the first applicant's brother had been murdered by army officers, as he had supplied the rebels with arms. Both Bishop Ilukor and Mr. Obwanga'moi stated that the police and the military were still searching for the applicants. The applicants also referred to a statement of 28 September 1994 prepared by Mr Emmie Gabantu at the UPF/UPA office in Kenya, certifying that the first applicant had purchased and delivered weapons and ammunition for the organisation. Mr Gabantu further stated that the persons arrested in connection with the arms transport in August 1991 had named the first applicant as the person being in charge of the transport. The NRA had thereafter been searching for him. Moreover, his relatives and friends had been detained, tortured and killed for failure to reveal information about him. Mr Gabantu also mentioned the murder of the first applicant's brother which had occurred in early 1994 and the occupation by the police of the company's premises. In addition to the above documents, the applicants also submitted new medical certificates to the Appeals Board in support of their new application. In response to the Appeals Board's finding in its decision of 3 June 1994 that the previous certificates did not support the first applicant's allegation that his scrotum had been burnt, Dr Søndergaard and Dr Jakobsson stated, in an opinion of 24 August 1994, that further examinations of the first applicant performed by Dr Jan Lapins, a specialist in dermatology, revealed scars on the first applicant's bottom that could well have been caused by a hot plate positioned as described by him in his statement referred to above. Dr Søndergaard and Dr Jakobsson further stated that the first applicant had serious suicide thoughts and blamed himself for his wife's mental problems and her hatred towards him for having caused harm to them and their family. The two physicians concluded that there was an imminent risk that the first applicant would attempt to commit suicide and that there were medical and psychiatric impediments to expulsion. According to a certificate issued by Dr Christer Härnryd, chief physician at the psychiatric clinic at the Karolinska Hospital, on 24 May 1995, the first applicant had been admitted to the clinic on 19 May. On 20 May he had made a serious suicide attempt by strangulation. Later the same day, he had been taken into compulsory care under the Act on Compulsory Psychiatric Care (Lagen om psykiatrisk tvångsvård, 1991:1128). According to Dr Härnryd, the first applicant refused to eat and was under constant observation due to the great risk of further suicide attempts. In these circumstances, it was deemed wholly unacceptable from a medical point of view to expel the first applicant. In an opinion of 14 June 1995, Dr Björn Wistisen, a specialist in psychiatric diseases at the psychiatric clinic at the S:t Göran Hospital in Stockholm, stated that the police had brought the second applicant to the hospital on 5 June after she had been found lying in the street, apparently unconscious. On 7 June she had had a violent outburst during which she had hit out right and left, broken glass and tried to escape from the ward. The same day, she had therefore been taken into compulsory psychiatric care. According to Dr Wistisen, she was psychotic, suffered from a severe depression and was inclined to make a suicide attempt. As from 10 June, she was under special observation as she was suspected of preparing to hang herself. According to her medical records, she had, on 31 August 1994, thrown herself in front of a motorcycle, probably in an attempt to commit suicide. By decision of 1 June 1995, the Appeals Board stayed the expulsion orders. Later, it requested the opinion of Dr Ingemar Sjödin, a specialist in psychiatric diseases at the psychiatric clinic at the University Hospital in Linköping. He is one of the physicians normally consulted by the immigration authorities in cases of the present kind (förtroendeläkare). After having studied the above medical certificates, the applicants' medical journals, their applications and statements and other documents included in the files of the immigration authorities and having also examined the applicants on 13 July 1995, Dr Sjödin delivered his opinion on 18 July. He found that the previous examinations of the applicants had been carried out by well-qualified physicians and that their opinions were well-founded. Moreover, the symptoms observed by the physicians were typical of post-traumatic stress syndromes. Dr Sjödin made the following assessment: "[The applicants] suffer from well-documented and serious mental disturbances which in both cases have necessitated institutional compulsory psychiatric care in accordance with the Act on Compulsory Psychiatric Care, especially in order to prevent suicide attempts. The present clinical picture is regarded as an aggravation due to immediate stress ... and a previously acquired post-traumatic stress syndrome probably based on fears that they will be killed if returned to [Uganda] and on their well-documented previous exposure to ill-treatment/torture including sexual abuse. I find nothing in the documentation to contravene such a conclusion. As regards [the second applicant], the course of events indicates an aggravation of the post-traumatic stress syndrome and a lingering depression with, at least during the period in care, frequently occurring outbursts of anxiety characterised by self-destructive and impulsive acts of a psychotic nature which have required extreme efforts on the part of the medical staff in order to prevent the patient from harming herself or the personnel. During the last week, the symptoms have been soothed by heavy anti-psychotic medicine. As regards [the first applicant], the course of events has been similar although it has not been characterised by the same intensity and frequency with respect to the impulsive acts but rather by a regressive development. ..." Dr Sjödin found that the expulsion of the applicants required special efforts including the assistance of qualified psychiatric staff during the actual deportation and the possibility to give medicine injections and to place the applicants in straps. Although this was medically possible, Dr Sjödin concluded that it was unethical and in conflict with basic humanitarian considerations. In his opinion, there was a relative impediment to expulsion. He further stated that, if the deportation was carried out, the applicants could sustain permanent physical and mental injuries. He estimated that the applicants were in need of qualified psychiatric care during the following 6-12 months. On 15 August 1995 the applicants' representative submitted observations on the opinion of Dr Sjödin. The representative stated that the first applicant had again tried to commit suicide and was under constant observation due to the imminent risk of further suicide attempts. According to Dr Erik Jönsson, chief physician at the psychiatric clinic at the Karolinska Hospital, the first applicant had tried to hang himself in the shower on 28 July. He had also repeatedly banged his head on a wall. After having received treatment on a voluntary basis for some time, he had therefore been under compulsory care between 28 and 31 July. Thereafter, the care was again given with the first applicant's consent. As regards the second applicant, Dr Wistisen had stated that the she was still self-destructive and might try to commit suicide. Recalling their previous submissions and the documents already available to the Appeals Board, the applicants therefore claimed that there were both political and humanitarian reasons for granting them residence permits. The deterioration of their mental state and their suicide attempts were allegedly a result of the persecution and torture they had previously been subjected to in Uganda and their fears of further such treatment and execution upon return. On 8 September 1995 the Appeals Board, by two votes to one, rejected the applicants' new application. It found that the new information concerning the applicants' political activities did not give reason for the Board to change its previous assessment. The applicants were therefore not entitled to asylum. As regards the humanitarian aspects of the case, the Board found that they were all related to the political reasons invoked by the applicants. Having found that the applicants' statements with regard to their political activities lacked credibility, the Board considered that their present state of health must have been caused by other factors. The Board therefore concluded that there were no impediments on humanitarian grounds to the expulsion of the applicants. The Board further stated that the expulsion, if necessary, should be carried out with the assistance of the physicians responsible for the care of the applicants. The chairman of the Appeals Board disagreed with the decision. In his dissenting opinion, he recalled Dr Sjödin's opinion that the applicants suffered from well-documented and serious mental disturbances which had necessitated institutional compulsory psychiatric care, especially in order to prevent suicide attempts, and that they could sustain permanent physical and mental injuries if expelled. The chairman found that this opinion was confirmed by the other medical evidence in the case. He thus considered that there were humanitarian reasons not to expel the applicants and that they should be granted permanent residence permits. After the Commission had indicated to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was desirable not to deport the applicants until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the present application, the National Immigration Board, by decision of 4 October 1995, stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order pending the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application. The applicants are at present in hiding in Sweden. COMPLAINT The applicants claim that their expulsion to Uganda would violate Article 3 of the Convention.PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 22 September and registered on 28 September 1995. On 27 September 1995 the President of the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the respondent Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to deport the applicants to Uganda until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application. The President further decided, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate the application to the respondent Government. By decisions of 26 October and 7 December 1995 and 25 January 1996, the Commission prolonged the indication under Rule 36, ultimately until 8 March 1996. The Government's observations were submitted on 16 November 1995 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicants replied on 4 January 1996, also after an extension of the time-limit.THE LAW
The applicants complain of their imminent expulsion to Uganda. They invoke Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which reads as follows: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The Government submit that the application should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. As regards the applicants' fears of political persecution, the Government maintain that, according to the Government's sources, there seems to have been a considerable improvement in Uganda during recent years with regard to the overall security in the country. There has been a general and considerable decline in human rights violations. Allegedly, there is no longer a risk of persecution on account of membership in a particular movement or political party. According to its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State has concluded that, in 1993 and 1994, there were no known instances of Government-sanctioned political killings or torture and no reports of disappearances in Uganda. The Government note that the UPF/UPA, in support of which the first applicant alleges to have been active, called off its insurgency in January 1994, i.e. after he left Uganda. The UPC, of which the second applicant alleges to be a member, is thought to be the only political party that may threaten the popularity of President Museveni's party, the National Resistance Movement (NRM), in the elections to be held in 1996. Moreover, some of UPC's members are included in the present Government. Furthermore, the Government share the misgivings of the Swedish immigration authorities as to several aspects of the applicants' submissions. Not only does it appear unlikely that the first applicant would have been able to leave Uganda carrying his own passport if he had actually been wanted by the Ugandan authorities on account of his alleged involvement in the transportation of munitions in August 1991. There are also inconsistencies with regard to the date of issue of the first applicant's passport which point in the direction that his journey to Sweden was planned in advance and was not connected with the incident that took place in August 1991. There are further inconsistencies in the information submitted by the applicants as regards the second applicant's whereabouts and injury in January 1992 and the time and circumstances of the first applicant's alleged detention and subsequent release from prison. Moreover, the notes found in the second applicant's passport contradict her account of her departure from Uganda. With respect to the applicants' allegations that they have been subjected to torture, the Government note that Dr Ståhl, in his opinions of 6 and 19 October 1993, has concluded that "torture/ill-treatment may well have occurred", a wording which does not rule out that any scar tissue or marks on either applicant's body may have other causes. In the light of the above, the Government argue that the political reasons invoked by the applicants must be considered to be open to doubt. However, should the information supplied by the applicants be correct, it is still not at all likely, considering the stabilised political situation in Uganda and the improvement of the human rights situation there, that the applicants would risk any persecution or harassment from the present regime. The Government therefore contend that substantial grounds have not been shown for believing that the applicants would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if the decision to expel them is enforced. As regards the applicants' state of health, the Government maintain that, when enforcing the expulsion, the police authority in charge will take into account the applicants' health and find the most appropriate manner for such an enforcement. Should the applicants' health be such that expulsion cannot take place, the police is obliged to notify the National Immigration Board of the impediments to enforcement. Moreover, Article 3 (Art. 3) must be applied with great caution in a case of the present character and in reliance on the good will of the authorities of the State concerned not to deport individuals where there are severe medical indications against such a measure, for instance where there is a substantial risk that an asylum seeker will harm himself or even commit suicide. The physical and mental condition of the persons concerned at the time of their deportation will be decisive. In this connection, the Government maintain that some time has already passed since the last medical opinions with regard to the applicants were issued and an even longer period of time will pass until the Commission has examined the application and the enforcement can take place. The Government are therefore of the opinion, in particular in view of the improvement in the human rights situation in Uganda, that the threshold under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention referred to by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden (judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, paras. 83-84) will not be exceeded in the present case if the expulsion order, if need be, is carried out in consultation with the doctors responsible for the applicants' treatment. The applicants submit that their expulsion to Uganda would put their lives and health at great risk. They allege that the opinions of the physicians at the CTD in Stockholm show that they have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Uganda on account of their political activities and that, because of these activities and the Ugandan authorities' interest in them, they risk further such treatment upon return. Several incidents, including the occupation by the Ugandan police of the premises of the first applicant's company, indicate that the applicants still risk persecution in Uganda. Furthermore, the developments in Uganda have not been as positive as alleged by the Government. In 1995, the NRM Government again arrested suspected dissidents in a manner which resembles the events that took place in 1991 and 1992. Moreover, guerilla warfare is still going on in the country. The applicants have submitted Ugandan newspaper articles to support these contentions. Furthermore, the medical certificates invoked by the applicants contain evidence that there are clear and serious risks of suicide attempts and permanent physical and mental injuries if the applicants are expelled. All certificates have been prepared by the most renowned Swedish experts in this field. The applicants' mental problems, documented in the certificates, are allegedly related to the applicants' experiences in Uganda. With respect to the Government's contention that Dr Ståhl's opinion does not rule out that the applicants' injuries may have other causes than torture, the applicants maintain that forensic examinations are used to exclude certain possible causes of injuries. Without having witnessed the actual torture, a forensic specialist cannot make more conclusive statements than those given by Dr Ståhl. His opinions therefore strongly support the applicants' allegations. As regards the possibility that the police authority will take into account any impediments to enforcement relating to the applicants' health, the applicants submit that the police is not competent to make such assessments. The applicants generally refer to the medical certificates in the case, especially the opinion of Dr Sjödin, the physician consulted by the Aliens Appeals Board, and to the dissenting opinion of the chairman of the Appeals Board. The Commission considers, after a preliminary examination of the present complaint in the light of the parties' submissions, that it raises questions of fact and law which require an examination of the merits. The application cannot, therefore, be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for inadmissibility have been established. For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously, DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case. Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission (H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)
