Search
document

Document text Analytics

B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19476/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1790

Document date: May 13, 1992

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19476/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1790

Document date: May 13, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

FIRST CHAMBER

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19476/92

by A.B.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 May 1992, the following members being present:

MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First 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 28 October 1991

by A.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 February 1992

under file No. 19476/92;

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 is a British citizen born in 1970 in Bangladesh.

She went to the United Kingdom in 1985 to settle. She is represented

before the Commission by Messrs. Hafiz & Co., Solicitors, London.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant and

which may be deduced from documents lodged with the application, may

be summarised as follows :

The applicant married a Bangladeshi citizen on 30 May 1988 after

hasty arrangements had been made by the couple's parents. They lived

together for a short time in Bangladesh but the applicant returned to

the United Kingdom as she became pregnant. She gave birth to a son on

18 January 1989. The husband has no other ties with the United Kingdom

apart from a sister whom he has not seen for many years and with whom

he maintained no direct contacts.

The husband applied for entry clearance, which was refused

because he was deemed to have entered the marriage for the primary

purpose of immigrating to the United Kingdom and because the applicant,

unemployed living in one rented room, did not have adequate

accommodation or means to support him without recourse to public funds.

The husband had no property or income either. An appeal was made to

an independent Adjudicator, by which time the applicant had an offer

of a job as a waitress. The appeal was rejected on 20 December 1990,

a decision upheld by an Immigration Appeal Tribunal on 11 May 1991.

The Adjudicator found that there was sufficient evidence to conclude

that the husband's purpose in marrying was to immigrate to the United

Kingdom and that it was not even clear that the couple had any

intention of living together as man and wife for the applicant had

quickly left him behind in Bangladesh. He also found that neither the

applicant nor her husband had adequate accommodation or the means to

maintain themselves without recourse to public funds.

Documents dated January 1992 purporting to show that the

applicant is now partner in a restaurant (an interest worth nearly

£7000 a year), and that she is expecting a second child have been

submitted to the Commission, but apparently not to British Immigration

authorities in any renewed entry clearance application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the refusal of entry clearance to

her husband deprives her and her son of a normal family life.

THE LAW

The applicant complained of the refusal by British immigration

authorities to grant entry clearance to her husband for him to settle

with her in the United Kingdom.

The relevant part of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

provides as follows :

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

family life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with

the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with

the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests

of ... the economic well-being of the country ..."

The present case raises an issue under this provision of the

Convention for, whilst the Convention does not guarantee a right, as

such, to enter or remain in a particular country, the Commission has

constantly held that the exclusion of a person from a country where his

close relatives reside may raise an issue under Article 8 (Art. 8)

(e.g. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219 ; No. 9088/80, Dec.

6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205).

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention presupposes the existence

of a family life and at least includes the relationship that arises

from a lawful and genuine marriage even if that family life has not yet

been fully established.

The Commission recalls that the State's obligation to admit to

its territory aliens who are relatives of persons resident there will

vary according to the circumstances of the case. The Court has held

that Article 8 (Art. 8) does not impose a general obligation on States

to respect the choice of residence of a married couple or to accept the

non-national spouse for settlement in the State concerned (Eur. Court

H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985,

Series A no. 94, p. 34, para. 68).

As regards the facts of the present case, the Commission notes

the Adjudicator's conclusions, firstly, that the primary purpose of the

marriage from the husband's point of view was to effect his entry into

the United Kingdom, secondly, that it was not sure that the couple

intended living together except perhaps in the United Kingdom and,

thirdly, that they could not afford to do this without recourse to

public funds. The Commission also notes that the applicant's husband

has few ties with the United Kingdom, that the applicant has lived most

of her life in Bangladesh and that there are no serious obstacles

preventing the couple establishing family life in that country.

In the circumstances of this case the Commission concludes that

the decision to refuse entry to the applicant's husband did not fail

to respect the applicant's right to respect for family life, ensured

by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention. Moreover, even

assuming that it did, the interference was justified in the interests

of the economic well-being of the country, pursuant to the second

paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8), given the couple's inability to live

in the United Kingdom without financial support from the State.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded, within

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

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary Acting President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (F. ERMACORA)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant