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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy