Search
document

Document text Analytics

H.B.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19018/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1807

Document date: April 5, 1994

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

H.B.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19018/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1807

Document date: April 5, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 19018/91

by H.B.C.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 5 April 1994, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

A. WEITZEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

assisted by Mrs. K. REID.

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 August 1991

by H.B.C. against the United Kingdom and registered on

31 October 1991 under file No. 19018/91;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to:

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

28 October 1992;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1966 in

Bangladesh and resident in the United Kingdom since 1975. She is

represented before the Commission by Messrs. Hafiz and company,

solicitors practising in London. The facts as submitted by the

applicant may be summarised as follows.

The applicant first met N., a Bangladeshi citizen in 1975.

N. had entered the United Kingdom as a student in 1973 and

breached his conditions of entry by taking employment. He also

overstayed his leave by five years. N. returned to Bangladesh in

1978. He went to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1979 claiming

the status of political refugee which was refused. While in

Germany, he applied to enter the United Kingdom as the fiancé of

the applicant. Leave was refused on 27 October 1983 on the basis

that the primary purpose of the marriage was settlement in the

United Kingdom. From Germany, he then went to the United Kingdom

where he was refused leave to enter on transit. He returned to

Bangladesh with the applicant and they were married there on 24

November 1983.

N. made an application for leave to enter the United Kingdom

as the spouse of the applicant which was refused on 2 February

1986. His appeal was refused on 4 November 1986. Leave to appeal

to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was also refused.

The applicant lived with her husband in Bangladesh until

1986 when she returned to the United Kingdom. She did not like

the climate of Bangladesh and her health suffered. She went back

to Bangladesh briefly in 1987 and became pregnant. She returned

to the United Kingdom and gave birth to a child on 22 October

1987. The applicant visited Bangladesh on 27 March 1989 where she

remained until May 1990. N. made a fresh application to enter

the United Kingdom on the ground of "intervening devotion".

Entry was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer on 6 April

1989. The Adjudicator refused the appeal on 12 February 1991. He

found discrepancies in the versions given by the applicant and

N. as to the purpose and the surrounding circumstances of their

marriage. He noted that N. did not provide the applicant with

financial support despite his successful business. He was not

convinced that the circumstances of the marriage had changed save

for the birth of a child. Having particular regard also to N.'s

history of infringing immigration legislation, he upheld the

decision that the marriage had been entered into primarily for

the purpose of gaining entry to the United Kingdom.

N. was refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal

Tribunal on 11 June 1991.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the refusal of entry to her

husband deprives her of the opportunity of enjoying a normal

family life.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 2 August 1991 and

registered on 31 October 1991.

On 9 September 1992, the Commission decided to communicate

the application to the Government and to ask for written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

By letter dated 28 October 1992, the Government informed the

Commission's Secretariat that the applicant's husband had been

granted entry clearance.

By letter dated 16 November 1992, the Secretariat asked the

applicant's solicitors whether they intended to withdraw the

application. By letter dated 17 December 1992, the applicant's

solicitors replied that the applicant was willing to withdraw but

that they wished to make an application for costs.

By letter dated 22 February 1993, the Government informed

the Secretariat that it was not willing to pay the applicant's

costs. The applicant's solicitors were informed of this and

clarification sought of their intentions as to the withdrawal of

the case. By letter dated 18 June 1993, the applicant's

solicitors wrote again enquiring about costs, claiming not to

have received previous correspondence from the Secretariat.

Copies of previous correspondence were sent. When the applicant's

solicitors failed to reply, they were warned in letter dated 15

September 1993 from the Secretariat that the application could

be struck off. In a letter dated 4 November 1993, the applicant's

solicitors replied asking whether they could claim legal aid from

the Commission. The forms were sent. In the absence of any

further correspondence from the solicitors, they were again

warned by letter dated 7 February 1994 that the Commission would

proceed to strike the case from its list of cases.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant's husband has been

granted entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom. By letter

dated 17 December 1992, the applicant's solicitors informed the

Secretariat that the applicant was willing to withdraw the

application but wished to make an application for costs. While

forms necessary for applying for legal aid have been sent to the

applicant's representatives, they have failed to reply or to

return the forms despite being warned that the Commission might

proceed to strike the case from the list.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the

applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the

Commission since the matter has been resolved. The Commssion

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.

Secretary to the Commission President of Commission

(H. C. KRUGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant