CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 février 1990

.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 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)