CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 mars 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 March 1986 the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   G. SPERDUTI                   J. A. FROWEIN                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL                 Mr.   H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 28 November 1984 by A.M. and A.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 December 1984 under file N° 11273/84;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The first applicant is a Cypriot citizen of Turkish origin born in 1954 and resident in London.   The second applicant is his sister, a Turkish Cypriot, born in 1949 and resident in Essex.   They are represented before the Commission by Messrs Rose and Birn, Solicitors, London.   The facts according to the applicants and the documents submitted by them may be summarised as follows:   The first applicant went to the United Kingdom as a visitor for one month in 1973 and remained unlawfully.   He married a British citizen in 1976 and applied for leave to remain, which was refused in May 1977.   Temporary, exceptional leave was then granted and extended until June 1980.   The marriage broke down, but the applicant remained unlawfully in the country.   He was thus about three years lawfully in the United Kingdom, the rest of the time his stay has been, and still is, unlawful.    In November 1983 the Secretary of State decided to deport the first applicant.   Part of the latter's claim to remain was based on the tragic circumstances of his sister:   The second applicant is lawfully settled in the United Kingdom, but her husband has been compulsorily detained in a mental hospital since 1976 and his chances of recovery are remote.   She has two children born in 1970 and 1972 respectively.   The eldest had a serious car accident in 1980 from which she has largely recovered, although the multiple injuries and brain damage suffered have left her in need of continuous treatment, for example, for possible epilepsy. The other child is not very healthy and needs medical attention every now and then.   The second applicant claims that she cannot speak English. She attended a Turkish primary school in Cyprus and when she arrived in the United Kingdom she hardly had any contact outside her husband's family.   Therefore she never picked up any English and does not speak English at all.   It is also claimed that the first applicant provides great assistance to her, both financially and emotionally.   He gives her £30 to £40 cash per week.   She is thus dependent on him.   The position of the Secretary of State is that this dependency is unsubstantiated.   The second applicant lives in a three bedroom council flat and receives welfare benefits and is able to cope;   the health of her husband and children are cared for by the State.   At the material time the first applicant was unable to provide any evidence of regular financial assistance to her.   On appeal to an Adjudicator on 15 August 1984 consideration was given to the first applicant's circumstances.   It was noted that he would not find the return to Cyprus easy, having to go to the North although originating from the South.   His marriage had been genuine but had broken down over four years ago.   He has a good job and good character record.   Then there was the plight of his sister.   The Adjudicator commented that the first applicant had been unwise in not asking the immigration authorities from the start for permission to stay and look after her.   (The first applicant comments that he was unaware of immigration laws and therefore did not approach the immigration authorities earlier.)   The Adjudicator accepted that he was "a financial support and of personal assistance" to her.   Against this was his "remarkable disregard for the Regulations from the outset", little of his long stay in breach of those Regulations being to his credit.   In the circumstances it was considered that the public interest in his deportation, based on his defiance of immigration controls, outweighed the compassionate circumstances of the sister and her family.   This decision was upheld by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on 18 September 1984.   The Government informed the Commission on 4 February 1985 that, in view of the Ajudicator and Tribunal determinations, they had decided to serve a deportation order on the first applicant and effect his removal to Cyprus.   On 27 March   1985 the applicants' representatives informed the Commission that the first applicant had married a British citizen on 24 January 1985.   COMPLAINTS   The applicants complain that the decision to deport the first applicant constitutes a breach of their right to respect for family life ensured by Art 8 of the Convention (art. 8).   It is submitted that the second applicant and her family are emotionally, financially and physically dependent on the first applicant.   Furthermore the first applicant cannot return to a part of Cyprus where he has no roots. Reliance is placed on the Commission's decisions in such cases as Uppal and Fernandes both against the United Kingdom (Applications N°s 8244/78 and 9123/80 respectively).   Discrimination in breach of Art 14 (art. 14), read in conjunction with Art 8 (art. 8), is also alleged on the basis of the first applicant's race, national or social origin.   The applicants contend that no provision of Art 8 (2) (art. 8-2) justifies the interference with their family life.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 28 November 1984 and registered on 4 December 1984.   After a preliminary examination of the case by a Rapporteur, the Commission decided on 10 December 1984 to seek further information from the applicants about their case, pursuant to Rule 42 (2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure.   At the same time the Secretary to the Commission informed the Government of the introduction of the application, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.   The applicants submitted certain information on 21 January 1985, which information has been included in THE FACTS above.   On 4 February 1985 the Government informed the Commission of their intention to proceed with the deportation of the first applicant.   The application was brought to the notice of the Government under Rule 42 (2) (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure on 11 March 1985, following which extensions of the time limit for submission of observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were granted on 10 June 1985 and 5 August 1985.   On 23 August 1985 the Government informed the Commission that the Government had reconsidered the case in the light of the first applicant's marriage to a British citizen and stated that the first applicant would therefore be permitted to stay in the United Kingdom, initially for twelve months and thereafter indefinitely as the husband of a British citizen.   The deportation order against the first applicant had been revoked on 30 July 1985.   The applicants' representatives on 9 December 1985 stated that they did not wish to pursue the case.   FINDING OF THE COMMISSION   The Commission has found that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which require further examination of the application.   Accordingly, the Commission accedes to the applicants' request, made through their representatives, to proceed no further with the case.   For this reason, the Commission   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission   (H. C. KRÜGER)                          (C. A. NØRGAARD)