CAT/C/23/D/127/1999
page 5
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
By its submission of 31 March 1999, the State party challenges the admissibility of the
communication owing to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and asks the Committee to
withdraw its request under rule 108, paragraph 9, of its rules of procedure.
4.2
The State party submits that applications for political asylum are dealt with in the first
administrative instance by the Directorate of Immigration, while a possible administrative appeal
is decided by the Ministry of Justice. As soon as a person submits an application for asylum, an
attorney is appointed. Thus, at the time he gives his first statement to the immigration
authorities, the applicant has free legal representation.
4.3
Following the usual practice the author was informed that: (a) he was obliged to give the
authorities all relevant information as thoroughly as possible, (b) additional information could be
supplied later, but that could weaken the trustworthiness of the application, and (c) the civil
servants and interpreters dealing with his application were under a duty to observe secrecy. The
author’s application underwent detailed scrutiny both in the Directorate of Immigration and on
appeal by the Ministry of Justice. However, it was turned down by both instances and the author
was asked to leave Norway.
4.4
The State party submits that as a general rule, the absence of any contrary provision, the
legality of an administrative act may be challenged in Norwegian courts. Thus, asylum-seekers
who find their applications for political asylum turned down by the administration have the
possibility of filing an application before Norwegian courts for judicial review and thereby have
the legality of the rejection examined. Such an application is not subject to leave by the courts;
neither is an application for injunction.
4.5
A party concerned may apply to the courts for an injunction, asking the court to order the
administration to defer the deportation of the asylum-seeker. According to the Enforcement of
Judgements Act 1992, an order for injunction may be granted if the plaintiff (a) demonstrates
that the challenged decision probably will be annulled by the court when the main case is to be
adjudicated, and (b) shows sufficient reasons for requesting an injunction, i.e. that an injunction
is necessary to avoid serious damage or harm if the expulsion were enforced without the court
having had the opportunity to adjudicate in the main case. Where the contested decision is a
denial of asylum status the second requirement in practice merges with the first requirement
which means that in an asylum case an application for injunction depends on whether or not the
plaintiff can demonstrate that the challenged decision probably will be annulled by the court in
the subsequent main case.
4.6
The author says under part 1 of his communication that a case concerning the legality of
the decision denying him asylum in Norway only “theoretically” may be taken to Norwegian
courts. This seems to indicate that he regards the domestic remedies as not in practice having
been accessible to him. The Government contends that practice in Norway clearly shows
otherwise: since 1987 more than 150 cases concerning the legality of decisions denying asylum
have been brought before Norwegian courts. A majority of these cases included a request for
injunction.