EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 27299/95

Sukhdev Singh JOHAL, Guryjot SINGH and Parveenjyot SINGH

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 27 October 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1 - 3)              1

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 4 - 12)              1

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 13 - 22) 2

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 23 - 24) 4

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

ADMISSIBILITY 5

I. THE PARTIES

1. This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30 para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by Sukhdev Singh Johal , Guryjot Singh and Parveenjyot Singh against the United Kingdom.

2. The applicants claimed in the application form to be British citizens. The first applicant, father of the second and third applicants, was born in 1967, while the second and third applicants were born in 1993 and 1994 respectively. They were resident in Birmingham at the time of introduction of the application.

3. The application is directed against the United Kingdom. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms. S. McCrory .

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

4. The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.             

5. K., an Indian national, entered the United Kingdom on 8 June 1991, having married a United Kingdom citizen, Y., on 1 March 1991 in India under an arranged marriage and having obtained the necessary entry clearance. She was given limited leave to remain until 8 June 1992 as a dependant spouse. However, following incidents of violence, K. commenced divorce proceedings against Y., the decree absolute being issued on 5 October 1992.

6. On 19 June 1992, after the expiry of the period of leave,  K. made a new application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. On 28 October 1992, the Secretary of State notified her by letter that he had decided to make a Deportation Order against her under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971.

7. On 12 September 1992, K. met and started a relationship with the first applicant. They claimed that they had started to co-habit in the last week of September. On 11 December 1992, they married. On 17 June 1993 their first child (the second applicant) was born  and 21 October 1994, their second child (the third applicant) was born.

8. On 22 December 1992, the first applicant's solicitors wrote to the Secretary of State on K.'s behalf for settlement on the basis of her marriage on 11 December 1992 to the first applicant, who was claimed to be a British citizen.

9. On 26 August 1994, the Secretary of State signed a Deportation Order under section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 which included an indefinite prohibition on K. entering the United Kingdom. By letter dated 16 September 1994, the Secretary of State claimed that, since the marriage between the first applicant and K. had taken place after the commencement of enforcement proceedings against K., the decision to deport her could not be reversed. The Secretary of State considered that there were no factors, including the birth of both the second and third applicants, that provided grounds for rescinding the Deportation Order, again because the actual marriage did not pre-date the enforcement action. By a letter dated 23 November 1994, the Secretary of State, stated, inter alia , that there was no evidence that the marriage was genuine and subsisting, and that Immigration Officers who visited her home in April and September 1994 did not find either her husband or evidence of his presence.

10. K. commenced judicial review proceedings.  On 16 March 1995, leave to review the decision of the Secretary of State to deport her was refused.

11. According to information provided by the Government, on 1 September 1997 the first applicant was arrested after a road traffic accident. Investigations into his identity by the police revealed that the first applicant had assumed a false identity. He was, in fact, Rammish Basis, an Indian national. He had been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom on 20 October 1985 and was due to take a flight from the United Kingdom on 2 February 1986 when it appears he absconded. Since September 1997, the first applicant has been held in detention in prison in Birmingham.

12. The complaints made on behalf of the  applicants alleged the expulsion of K. would disclose violations of Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

13. The application was introduced on 1 May 1995 and registered on 11 May 1995.

14. On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the  applicants' complaints concerning Articles 8, 13 and 14 to the respondent Government.

15. The Government's written observations were submitted on 20 November 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicants replied on 4 and 8 March 1997, also after an extension of the time-limit.

16. On 3 December 1996, the Commission granted the applicants legal aid.

17. On 4 March 1998, the Commission declared the application admissible.

18. The text of the Commission's decisions on admissibility was sent to the parties on 18 March 1998 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.

19. On 22 April 1998, the Government informed the Commission they had discovered that the first applicant had given a false identity, was not a British citizen as he had alleged and this meant the second and third applicants were also unlikely to be British citizens. By letter dated 15 May 1998, the Secretariat invited the applicants' solicitors to comment.

20. By letter dated 22 May 1998, the applicants' solicitors informed the Commission that they had ceased to act for the first applicant and gave the name and address of his latest solicitors. By letter dated 23 July 1998, these solicitors stated that they no longer represented the applicant. By letter dated 30 July 1998, the Secretariat wrote directly to the first applicant requesting his response to the information provided by the Government. By letter dated 3 September 1998, the Government informed the Commission that the first applicant was detained in HM Prison Birmingham. By letter dated 10 September 1998, the Secretariat requested the first applicant to clarify his position. He was warned that a failure to respond by 16 October 1998 might lead to the application being struck off on the assumption that he had lost interest in pursuing it. No reply from the first applicant has been received.

21. On 27 October 1998, the Commission decided to strike the present application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1  of the Convention.

22. The Commission adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish it.  The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:

Mr. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

  A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

C. BÃŽRSAN

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

23. The Commission notes that there are major discrepancies between the accounts submitted by the applicants in their application concerning in particular the identity, nationality and immigration status of the first applicant and the information provided by the United Kingom Government. The first applicant has failed to respond to requests to clarify his position, despite a warning that this may result in the case being struck off.

24. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application introduced by the applicants, which should therefore be struck off the list pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(c) of the Convention. The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;

ADOPTS  THE PRESENT REPORT;

DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties' representatives, and to publish it.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO                     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary                                          President

to the First Chamber              of the First Chamber