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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy