CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 décembre 1987

.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 }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY   Application No. 13031/87 by T.B. against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 December 1987, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   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 6 May 1987 by T.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 23 June 1987 under file No. 13031/87;           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 applicant is a Nigerian citizen, born in 1956, who at the time of lodging his application was resident in London.   He is represented before the Commission by Maria Davidson of the Hackney Law Centre, London.           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:           On 9 June 1986 the British immigration authorities refused to allow the applicant to prolong his stay in the United Kingdom to look after his child and be with his Nigerian wife, who had study leave in the United Kingdom until 30 July 1987.   Leave was refused because there is no provision in the relevant Immigration Rules (Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 169, as amended) permitting a dependent husband to remain in the United Kingdom with a student wife.   However paragraph 25 of the said rules allows dependent wives and children to accompany student husbands to the United Kingdom.           The applicant was advised to leave or face deportation. Moreover criminal proceedings were instituted against him for overstaying.   However, the applicant was not deported, but left the United Kingdom voluntarily in September 1987 with his family, after his wife had completed her study course and the charges against him were dismissed for lack of evidence because he was able to show his good faith regarding his immigration status.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of discrimination in the Immigration Rules, which allow the wife of a student husband to remain in the United Kingdom for the length of the husband's permitted studies, but not the husband of a student wife.   He invokes Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.     THE LAW           The applicant has complained to the Commission of discriminatory Immigration Rules by which student husbands may be accompanied by their dependent wives and children, but which contain no equivalent provision for the dependent husbands of student wives.   The applicant was, therefore, refused permission to prolong his stay in order to care for his child and be with his wife in the United Kingdom where she had limited study leave.           The applicant has invoked Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees, inter alia, the right to respect for family life, subject to certain limited exceptions, and Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention which guarantees freedom from discrimination in the securement of Convention rights and freedoms.           Whilst the Convention does not guarantee a right, as such, to enter or remain in a particular country, the Commission has constantly held that the exclusion of a person from a country where his close relatives reside may raise an issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (e.g.   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. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205).   Moreover, a difference in treatment between men and women and their entry rights, enabling them to join spouses lawfully resident in a particular country, may raise an issue of sexual discrimination in the protection of the right to respect for family life (Eur.   Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, paras. 71-83).           However, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine whether there has been sexual discrimination, contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 (Art. 8), entrenched in the Immigration Rules challenged by the applicant, because the facts of the present case do not show that the applicant actually suffered such discrimination.   Although he was issued with a formal refusal of leave to remain in June 1986 he was not deported. He was able, therefore, to remain in the United Kingdom for over a year with his wife and child, until his wife completed her study course.   In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the applicant may no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention and that the application must be rejected as being 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)