Search
document

Document text Analytics

BEGUM AND FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28573/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3612

Document date: April 15, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

BEGUM AND FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28573/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3612

Document date: April 15, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 28573/95

by Jushna BEGUM and family

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 15 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 September 1995

by Jushna BEGUM and family against the United Kingdom and registered

on 18 September 1995 under file No. 28573/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants were named as follows: Mrs. Jushna Begum, a

British citizen, her husband Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rahman (deceased

1.8.93), and their children Mohammad Ruhul Islam (born in 1980),

Mohammad Amirul Islam (born in 1982), Ayesha Begum (born in 1983),

Ruhena Begum (born in 1989). The children are Bangladeshi citizens as

was their father. The family were resident in Bangladesh at the time

of introduction of the application and represented before the

Commission by Omar Faruque & Company, solicitors practising in London.

In September 1989 the spouse and four children of

Mrs. Jushna Begum ("the parties"), applied to the British High

Commission, Dhaka, for entry clearance to join Mrs. Jushna Begum, a

British citizen who was resident and settled in the United Kingdom. The

sponsor of the parties was interviewed by immigration officers, whose

enquiries concluded that the sponsor's undertaking to accommodate the

parties had no foundation in reality. Entry clearance was refused in

June 1990, as the Secretary of State was not satisfied that there would

be adequate accommodation or that the parties would be able to maintain

themselves without recourse to public funds.

An appeal against the decision, lodged on 17 July 1990 in the

British High Commission was refused by the Secretary of State.

In April/May 1991 solicitors acting for the applicants submitted

further evidence of accommodation to the British High Commission. At

an appeal hearing on 17 February 1992 before the adjudicator, the

applicants' counsel adduced evidence of a new sponsor who offered

accommodation. Since the Home Office report contained conflicting

information, the adjudicator adjourned his determination for the Home

Office to consider the matter further.

On 12 November 1992 the applicants received a letter which stated

that the Secretary of State, having considered the fresh evidence,

found no reason to reverse his decision in June 1990, and that the case

would now proceed to appeal.

On 1 August 1993 the spouse of Mrs. Jushna Begum, Mr. Mohammad

Abdul Rahman, died. The appeal against refusal of entry was continued

on behalf of the children.

On 30 March 1994 an appeal was held before an adjudicator. At the

time of the appeal Mrs. Jushna Begum was in Bangladesh with her

children. The adjudicator noted that it was not clear from the evidence

whether Mrs. Jushna Begum intended to return, but that if this were the

case she could apply for all of her children (who were all under the

age of 18), to be admitted for settlement under paragraph 53 (d) of the

Immigration Rules, which specifically concerned the situation of

children where one parent is dead and the other parent was settled in

the United Kingdom or was to be admitted for settlement. The

adjudicator took into account Mrs. Jushna Begum's previous employment

and current offer of employment in the United Kingdom and accepted that

the children could be maintained without recourse to public funds. He

found that the accommodation offered by the sponsor was not available

at the time of the June 1990 decision but was reluctant to dismiss an

appeal on the basis that circumstances had changed since the first

application, particularly as he considered an application under

paragraph 53(d) of the Immigration Rules would have been possible and

that this would have led to the same result (ie. Entry Clearance Visas

being granted). The appeal was accordingly allowed by the adjudicator

and entry clearance granted to the children in a determination dated

25 May 1994.

On 3 August 1994 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal granted the

Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka, leave to appeal against the

determination of 25 May 1994. This appeal was heard on 13 February 1995

and on 10 March 1995 the applicants were notified that the appeal had

been allowed on the basis that the accommodation put forward on the

original application was inadequate and that at that date it could not

be shown the maintenance requirements of the rules were satisfied.

Leave to appeal was refused by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

refused on 10 April 1995 and by the Court of Appeal on 3 July 1995.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants invoked Articles 3, 8, 12 and 14 of the

Convention.

The applicants complained that the treatment they have received

from the immigration authorities amounted to inhuman and degrading

treatment; interfered with their family life; that Mrs. Jushna Begum's

freedom to live with her husband was significantly restricted contrary

to Article 12 of the Convention and that Mrs. Jushna Begum had been

discriminated against because of her sex, in that if she were a male

her children would have been British by birth, with automatic right to

entry into the United Kingdom.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 1 September 1995 and registered

on 18 September 1995.

By letter dated 19 February 1997, the applicants' solicitors

informed that Secretariat that the applicants did not wish to continue

with the application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that the applicants' solicitors have

stated that the applicants no longer wish to pursue their complaints.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicants

do not intend to pursue their application before the Commission. 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.

It follows that the application may be struck off the list of

cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant