Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 28052/95

by F.F.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 12 April 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

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 10 December 1994

by F.F. against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 July 1995 under

file No. 28052/95;

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 applicant was born in Corfu, Greece in 1959. He became on

birth a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the

British Nationality Act 1948, as amended. In 1983 he became a British

Overseas citizen by virtue of the British Nationality Act 1981. He

lives currently in Wales.

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

summarised as follows:

a) Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant is described as of Maltese ethnic origin by the

Greek authorities. Although his family has lawfully resided in Greece

for many generations, they are not Greek nationals. Both the

applicant's parents and grand-fathers as well as one grand-mother are

British nationals. His other grand-mother is an Italian national.

The applicant claims that the applications for naturalisation of

both the applicant's father and brother have been refused by the Greek

authorities. He also claims that his mother submitted an application

for naturalisation in 1988, which remains unanswered.

The applicant has lived for the greatest part of his life in

Greece. In 1983, when he graduated from medical school in Greece, he

tried to pursue advanced medical training in a United Kingdom hospital.

However, he was not able to do so, because of his nationality status.

In 1990 he was given leave to enter the UK for six months on condition

that he did not take up employment.

In September 1991 the applicant completed his medical training

in a Greek hospital. He claims that, not being able obtain a work

permit as an alien, he could not find employment.

In 1993 the applicant lodged an application with the Commission

(No. 21770/93) against the United Kingdom complaining under Article 3

and other provisions of the Convention of his inability to reside or

work in that country. The application was rejected by a committee of

three Commission members on 1 July 1993.

In the course of the same year the applicant applied for

naturalisation to the Greek authorities. His application is still

pending.

In 1994 the applicant delayed renewing his "alien's identity

card" in Greece. He was charged with illegally remaining in Greece but

was acquitted. On 5 December 1994 the applicant was issued by the Greek

authorities with an one year's residence permit (valid from

1 September 1994 to 1 September 1995). He claims that he then realised

that he was subject to the provisions of the new Greek law 1975/1991

on aliens.

On 3 July 1995 the applicant was informed by the United Kingdom

immigration authorities that he did not need a work permit to pursue

post-graduate training in a United Kingdom hospital. Upon completion

of his training, however, he would be expected to leave that country.

On 29 July 1995 the applicant left Greece for the United Kingdom

to undergo post-graduate training in a hospital in the north-east of

England. However, he interrupted his six-month contract with that

hospital and on or around 6 November 1995 he started working for a

hospital in Wales. The post held by the applicant in the Welsh hospital

was not recognised for post-graduate training and his contract was due

to expire on 7 February 1996.

The applicant did not apply to have his Greek residence permit

renewed.

b) National law and practice

Until 1 July 1962, when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962

entered into force, all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies had

an automatic right to enter and take up residence in the United

Kingdom. Under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 citizens of the

United Kingdom and Colonies who had been issued with a "United Kingdom

passport" continued to have an automatic right to enter and take up

residence in the United Kingdom. A "United Kingdom passport" was, for

the purposes of the 1962 Act, a passport issued by the Government of

the United Kingdom, not being a passport issued on behalf of the

Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which entered into force

on 1 March 1968, introduced immigration controls for citizens of the

United Kingdom and Colonies with a United Kingdom passport who could

not establish an ancestral link, through their parents or grand-

parents, with the United Kingdom.

Under the Immigration Act 1971 the right of abode in the United

Kingdom was basically limited to those citizens of the United kingdom

and Colonies who (a) were born in the United Kingdom or (b), if not

born in the United Kingdom, were born of a parent born in the United

Kingdom or had a grand-parent who acquired his or her British

citizenship through birth in the United Kingdom or (c) have been

ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, while being subject to no

restriction as to length of stay under the immigration laws, for at

least the last five years, preceding 28 October 1971, the date of entry

into force of the Immigration Act 1971.

In accordance with a declaration made by the United Kingdom in

1973, on the occasion of its accession to the European Communities,

those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had no right of

abode in the United Kingdom were not to be considered as "Community

nationals" for the purposes of Community law.

Under the British Nationality Act 1981 all citizens of the United

Kingdom and Colonies who did not become, by virtue of the same Act,

British citizens or British Dependent Territories citizens became

British Overseas citizens. The latter have no right of abode in the

United Kingdom. Moreover, under a new declaration made in 1983 by the

United Kingdom Government, they are not to be considered as "Community

nationals" for the purposes of Community law.

Article 21 para. 1 of the Greek law 1975/1991 on aliens, which

entered into force on 4 December 1991, stipulates that Greek and

Community nationals, as well as aliens of Greek ethnic origin and

refugees have priority over other aliens insofar as employment is

concerned. As a result, an alien will only obtain permission to work

in Greece if there are no candidates belonging to the above-mentioned

categories of persons for the post he wishes to occupy.

Article 6 para. 5 (e) of law 1975/1991 specifies that

applications for work permits by aliens must be submitted to a Greek

consulate abroad.

Under Article 6 para. 5 (g) of the same law an alien is allowed

into Greece only if he holds a passport which permits re-entry in his

country of origin.

Moreover, under Article 18 of law 1975/1991 an alien with a valid

residence permit may not leave Greece for more than two months. If he

does not return within two months he must apply for a new residence

permit, even if the previous one has not yet expired.

Finally, on the standard document for aliens' residence permits

it is indicated that the above-mentioned document must be surrendered

to the police authorities at the frontier every time the residence

permit-holder leaves Greece.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his not being allowed to live and

work permanently in the country of which he is a citizen amounts to

degrading treatment and constitutes a continuous violation of Article 3

of the Convention. He considers that, although he is white, his

situation is comparable to that of the applicants in the East African

Asians case (East African Asians v. United Kingdom, Comm. Report

14.12.73, D.R. 78 p. 5) in respect of which the Commission found a

violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicant further submits that, if he is expelled from the

United Kingdom, he risks not being re-admitted into Greece. Under the

new law 1975/1991, an alien may be allowed in Greece only if he holds

a passport which permits re-entry in his country of origin The

applicant's passport does not secure his return to the United Kingdom.

In any event, it is virtually impossible for the applicant to obtain

permission under law 1975/1991 to work as a doctor in Greece, given the

number of unemployed doctors of Greek nationality.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that his not being allowed to live and

work in the country of which he is a citizen amounts to degrading

treatment and constitutes a continuous violation of Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention.

The Commission recalls that the applicant has already complained

of the allegedly degrading consequences of the United Kingdom

nationality and immigration laws and on 1 July 1993 the Commission

decided that these complaints were inadmissible.

Since the rejection of his previous application, the applicant

has been allowed in the United Kingdom and has found employment there.

However, the terms of the applicant's admission into the United Kingdom

do not guarantee the right to remain permanently in that country, which

he will be expected to leave once he completes the period of his post-

graduate training. Moreover, the applicant submits that, if he is

expelled from the United Kingdom, he risks not being re-admitted into

Greece, by virtue of the provisions of law 1975/1991 on aliens which

has been in the meantime enacted in that country.

The Commission has taken note of the "new" information submitted

by the applicant concerning the effects of law 1975/1991. It considers,

however, that it is at this stage premature to speculate as to how the

Greek authorities would react to a request for re-admission submitted

by a person in the applicant's situation. The Commission notes, in this

connection, that there is no indication that the applicant faces

imminent expulsion from the United Kingdom. As a result and in

accordance with the Court's case-law, the applicant cannot claim to be

a victim of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (Eur.

Court, H.R., Vijayanathan and Pusparajah judgment of 27 August 1992,

Series A no. 241, p. 87, para. 46).

It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance

with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

F.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

F.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI