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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy