DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

      I regret that I cannot agree with the majority in this case.

      The Commission does not recognise the right of an alien to enter

in a particular country.  In those exceptional cases, where an alien

has close relatives in a country which is Party to the Convention and

his admission is sought on the basis of the right to respect for his

or his relatives' family life, the question whether there is an

obligation on the part of the State to admit such an alien must depend

on the particular circumstances of the case.  In this respect account

must also be taken of the State's margin of appreciation.

      Humanitarian grounds are not sufficient to create an obligation

on the part of the State to admit an alien.  Such an obligation, in the

context of the right to respect for family life, can only exist if (a)

the non-admission of the alien would inevitably amount to a disruption

of the complainant's family life lawfully established in the territory

of the State concerned; and if (b) the non-admission is not found to

be necessary for any of the purposes set out in para. 2 of Article 8

of the Convention.

      In this particular case applicant's family life was at the

material time already disrupted through no fault of the respondent

Government.  Applicant's daughter N., born in Switzerland, could not

be taken care of either by the applicant or his wife and she had to be

placed in a home.  His sons T. and E. had been living in Turkey ever

since the applicant entered Switzerland in 1983.  Applicant's son E.

was already twelve years old when the refusal complained of to admit

him in Switzerland took place.

      Applicant was only permitted to reside in Switzerland temporarily

on humanitarian grounds.  He was not given a permit to establish

domicile.  Admission of an alien under these circumstances could not

reasonably entail an obligation on the part of the State concerned to

allow entry of his family as well, or be a ground for legitimate

expectations for such entry.  It was a temporary, conditional and

personal admission of the applicant not extending to his family.

      Applicant complains that the refusal to admit his son E. in

Switzerland amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his family

life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.  In the light

of the above, I believe that applicant's complaint is unfounded.

                              APPENDIX I

                      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date                        Item

_________________________________________________________________

31 December 1993            Introduction of application

10 January 1994             Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

11 April 1994               Commission's decision to communicate the

                            case to the respondent Government and to

                            invite the parties to submit observations

                            on admissibility and merits

21 June 1994                Government's observations

08 July 1994                Commission's granting of legal aid

26 August 1994              Applicant's observations in reply

10 October 1994             Commission's decision to declare

                            application in part admissible and in part

                            inadmissible

Examination of the merits

2 December 1994             Parties' observations

16 January 1995             Government's further observations

21 February 1995            Applicant's further observations

25 February 1995            Commission's consideration of the state of

                            the proceedings

4 April 1995                Commission's deliberations on the merits,

                            final vote and adoption of the Report