AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 26292/95
by Idris Khan Ahmed Khan PATHAN
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 16 January 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
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 13 October 1994
by Idris Khan Ahmed Khan PATHAN against the United Kingdom and
registered on 26 January 1995 under file No. 26292/95;
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 is an Indian citizen born in 1969 and resident in
Darlington. He is represented before the Commission by Singh and
Ruparell, solicitors practising in Darlington. The facts as submitted
by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in India. His father entered the United
Kingdom from Zambia in 1987 and his mother, two brothers and two
sisters entered the United Kingdom in or about 1989. They subsequently
obtained leave to settle indefinitely in the United Kingdom. The
applicant did not accompany them since he was pursuing a course of
religious study in South Africa. On 3 March 1993, he entered the United
Kingdom with limited leave to remain until 3 December 1993.
On 13 December 1993, the applicant's father who was permanently
settled in the United Kingdom, applied for permission for indefinite
leave for the applicant to remain.
On 27 July 1994, the application was refused. Since the
application was made after expiry of leave, no appeal could be made
under the relevant rules.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the refusal of leave to remain
discloses a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that it was an
unjustifiable interference with his right to enjoyment of family life
with the other members of his family, with whom he always used to live.
He alleges that his entire family is resident in the United Kingdom.
Further his father is ill with a serious liver complaint and it is
unfair and unreasonable not to allow the applicant to remain to care
for him. It is alleged that he has nowhere else to go.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the refusal of leave to remain in
the United Kingdom infringes his right to respect for his family life.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as relevant:
"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 national security, public safety or the economic well-being
of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others."
The Commission recalls according to its established case-law that
while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee
a right to enter or remain in a particular country, issues may arise
where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close
relatives reside or have the right to reside (see eg. 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. 8.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205).
The Commission has examined whether such a degree of dependency
exists between the applicant and his relatives as to give rise to the
protection envisaged by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (cf. Nos.
9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81 Dec. 11.5.82 D.R. 29 p. 176 and No.
13564/88 dec 8.9.88 D.R. 57 p. 287). Generally, the protection of
family life under Article 8 (Art. 8) involves cohabiting dependents,
such as parents and their dependent, minor children. Whether it extends
to other relationships depends on the circumstances of the particular
case. In immigration cases, relationships between a parent and adult
child would not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8
(Art. 8) without evidence of further elements of dependency, involving
more than the normal, emotional ties (see eg. No. 10375/83, Dec.
10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 196).
In this context, the Commission notes that the applicant, who is
25 years of age, has lived apart from his family for a number of years.
While it appears that the applicant's father is seriously ill, there
is no indication that the father is dependent on the applicant for any
necessary care and support, his wife and other children also living in
the United Kingdom. Nor is there is any substantiated allegation that
the applicant was previously dependent for support from his family.
In these circumstances, notwithstanding the humanitarian element
referred to above, the Commission finds that it has not been shown that
there exists a sufficiently close link between the applicant and his
relatives in United Kingdom to enable him to claim to have suffered an
interference with his right to respect to family life as guaranteed by
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It concludes therefore that there
is no appearance of a violation of this provision.
It follows that the application must be rejected as manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of 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