THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows: The applicant is a British subject. He was born in India

in 1930 and now lives in Coventry.

From the applicant's statements and the documents submitted by him it

appears that from 1952 until 1964 he lived in Kenya. He then returned

to India but left for the United Kingdom in 1965. His wife and

5 children remained in India from 1965 until 1968 when they joined him

in the United Kingdom. His mother, his brother and his sister, all of

whom are Indian citizens, appear to have been in India at all times.

In April 1970 the applicant's mother, brother and sister applied for

permission to join him in the United Kingdom. Their request for entry

certificates was refused by the Entry Certificate Officer at Bombay.

The applicant and his solicitor, who is a Member of Parliament

concerned with immigration problems, then appealed to an Adjudicator

at Birmingham, against the decision taken at Bombay. The appeal was

rejected on .. September 1971.

It appears from the documents submitted by the applicant that his

mother sought entry to the United Kingdom under a provision (paragraph

43 of Cmnd. 4298) which allows a widow to enter the United Kingdom to

join a near relative, provided that she is wholly or mainly dependent

for support on such relative and provided also that the relative can

provide accommodation for her. The Entry Certificate Officer at Bombay

refused to grant a certificate because the applicant's mother had told

him that she was not dependent on the applicant but on her

brother-in-law. During the appeal at Birmingham the applicant

maintained that his mother was dependent upon him. He produced evidence

to show that he had remitted various sums of money to India from 1965

onwards. The Adjudicator held that there was no evidence that any

substantial sums had been paid to the applicant's mother. It seemed a

reasonable inference that money paid before 1968 was mainly for the

benefit of the applicant's wife and children, while there was no

evidence of the payment of substantial sums after 1968 until

approximately the time when the applications for entry certificates

were made. The Adjudicator, therefore, confirmed the decision not to

grant an entry certificate to the applicant's mother. He held that the

applicant's sister, aged 17, was a dependant of his mother and that the

decision in her case depended directly on the decision in the mother's

case. He also refused a certificate to the applicant's 25 year old

brother.

The applicant now appears to claim that the decision taken by the

Adjudicator was based on an incorrect appreciation of the facts. After

the Adjudicator's decision, the applicant obtained a letter from his

bank showing that a sum of £225 paid to India in 1966 had been paid to

his mother, not to his wife. He has also stated that he paid a sum of

money to his uncle before he left India. This was paid so that his

uncle could provide for his mother, brother and sister. The applicant

has produced a certificate showing that his brother is a full-time

student. He claims that his brother is his dependant.

Complaints

The applicant complains that the United Kingdom authorities have

refused permission for his mother, his brother and his sister, all of

whom are his dependants, to join him in England. In this respect he

does not appear to complain of the provisions of English law, but

complains that the final decision taken by the Birmingham Adjudicator

on .. September 1971 was based on an incorrect understanding of the

facts of the case. He does not explain clearly in what way he considers

that this constitutes a violation of the Convention and makes no

reference to any particular Article of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that the United Kingdom authorities have

refused permission for his mother, his brother and his sister to join

him in England. However, he has not explained clearly how he considers

that this might constitute a violation of the Convention. He has

presented the application as if it were a retrial of the case heard by

the Birmingham Adjudicator on .. September 1971 and has stated that he

can produce evidence not available to the Adjudicator.

The Commission notes that the issue facing the Birmingham Adjudicator

was whether or not the applicant's mother was "dependent for support"

on him. This was the relevant question according to the English

immigration rules, but it is not necessarily conclusive for the case

before the Commission. The Commission must examine the applicant's

complaints in the light of the Convention and the Article of the

Convention which it considers relevant to the facts of the case is

Article 8 (1) (Art. 8-1): "Everyone has the right to respect for his

.... family life."

The Commission will assume, in the applicant's favour, that the facts

of the case are as he wished the Adjudicator to accept them. It will

assume that, at various times, he has sent money from England to India

in support of his mother, his brother and his sister. Nevertheless,

even though the applicant's mother, brother and sister may thus have

been dependent upon him it is clear that he and they have lived apart

in different countries for 19 out of the past 20 years. They have lived

apart from 1952-64 and from 1965 until the present time. Under these

circumstances it cannot be said that the applicant has shown that such

a link exists between him and his mother, brother and sister as to make

the refusal by the authorities to allow them to enter the United

Kingdom amount to a violation of his right to family life within the

meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8).

An examination by the Commission of this complaint, as it has been

submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

forth in the Convention and in particular in the above Article.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION

INADMISSIBLE.