AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 15869/89
by Noor ISLAM
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
15 February 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
J. CAMPINOS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
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 1989
by Noor ISLAM against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 December
1989 under file No. 15869/89;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, born in 1958 and
resident in Sylhet, Bangladesh. He is represented before the
Commission by Messrs. Hafiz & Co., Solicitors, London.
The applicant applied for and obtained entry clearance to join
his father in the United Kingdom in March 1979. He states that,
without realising that it would affect his entry entitlement, he
married a Bangladeshi citizen a month before going to the United
Kingdom. On return from to a trip to Bangladesh in December 1986 he
was refused re-entry, when he applied for entry for his wife and their
child. The immigration authorities then learnt that he had married in
1979 and held that his original entry clearance was invalid for having
failed to disclose a material fact that no longer made him his
father's dependent.
The applicant claims that he and his father were not aware of
the materiality of marriage for the purpose of entry, that he had
originally been given indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom
where he had made his home and business. (He is the owner of a
valuable freehold house and restaurant.) It is submitted that it
would be wrong to refuse the applicant leave to re-enter the United
Kingdom where his parents and brothers are also settled.
The applicant's various appeals to the immigration authorities
and an application for judicial review ultimately failed, the final
decision being that of the Court of Appeal on the latter application
on 4 July 1989. He invokes Article 8 (Art. 8) (private and family
life and home) and Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.
However the Commission recalls that the Convention does not
guarantee a right to enter or remain in a particular country (cf. e.g.
No. 10375/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 196). Nevertheless, even
assuming that the separation of the applicant from his parents and
brothers and from his home and restaurant could constitute an
interference with his rights under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention, the Commission finds no evidence in the case file to
demonstrate that these factors outweigh the State's right to
effectively enforce immigration controls. Such controls fall within
the notion of public order reflected in the terms of Article 8
para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention, in particular "the prevention of
disorder". Furthermore, having in effect found no arguable claim of a
breach of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the Commission also
finds that no issue of remedies arises under Article 13 (Art. 13) of
the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy