CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 janvier 1993

.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. 20100/92                       by A.K.                       against the United Kingdom         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 January 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G. B. REFFI                    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 27 March 1992 by A.K. against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 June 1992 under file No. 20100/92 ;         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 a British national born in 1969 and resident in Liverpool.   She is represented in the proceedings before the Commission by Messrs. Hafiz & Co., solicitors practising in London.         The facts, as submitted by the applicant and which may be deduced from the documents lodged with the application, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant was born in Bangladesh and immigrated to the United Kingdom in 1981 at the age of 12.   She became a naturalised British citizen in 1984.   At present she works as a waitress.         On 27 February 1987 the applicant returned to Bangladesh with her parents for a visit.   During the visit her parents and the parents of A.H.K., a first cousin of hers, arranged a marriage.   A.H.K. married the applicant, 16 years his junior, a few days later on 10 July 1987. He is a subsistence farmer.   The couple lived together.   However, after four months the applicant returned to the United Kingdom because of health complications after she became pregnant.   There was continuing contact by correspondence thereafter.   On 7 May 1988 a daughter was born to the couple.   The applicant visited Bangladesh again in 1989 when she stayed for six months.         The applicant sponsored her husband to join her in the United Kingdom.   A.H.K. applied to obtain entry clearance, but his application was refused by an Entry Clearance Officer on 20 June 1989 on the ground that he was deemed to have contracted the marriage for the primary purpose of immigrating to the United Kingdom in contravention of para. 46 (a) of the Immigration Rules (HC 503).         The officer considered the credibility of A.H.K. poor as his answers to questions were sometimes either obvious lies or contradicted his previous answers.   For example, the family of A.H.K. had a long history of emigration.   However, A.H.K. systematically tried to conceal details about relatives who had emigrated from Bangladesh; he tried to deny the fact that his own father had lived in the United Kingdom and married a British woman before returning to Bangladesh.   He also denied the existence of a brother who had gone to Saudi Arabia.   When asked about the reasons for this behaviour he replied to the Officer that he was "just listening to people's advice".         A.H.K. stated during his interview that the couple had begun to discuss in which country they would live together only six weeks after the marriage.   He also said that "if given the choice he would stay in Bangladesh", nevertheless, later in his interview he conceded that he also wanted to go to the United Kingdom because he was poor.         The Entry Clearance Officer considered that in all the circumstances it was impossible to believe that the couple had waited six weeks before discussing where they should live.   The husband was thought to have been well aware of the advantages of living overseas and the applicant was deemed never to have had any intention of settling again in Bangladesh.   She had stated at the interview that everyone in the two families knew in advance that they would live in the United Kingdom after the marriage.         The husband's appeal to an Adjudicator was rejected on 11 September 1990.   The Adjudicator concluded that in view of the many discrepancies in the husband's story about his background circumstances the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer had been correct.         On 8 April 1991 the Adjudicator's decision was upheld by an Immigration Appeal Tribunal.   Finally on 3 September 1991 and on 23 October 1991 two leave applications for judicial review were refused by the High Court.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   She contends that there was no basis for holding that the primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain her husband's admission to the United Kingdom.   Any doubts as to this had been disproved by the couple's intervening devotion.       THE LAW         The applicant complains of the British Immigration Authorities' refusal of her husband's admission to the United Kingdom.   She invokes Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.         Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention provides:         "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family       life, his home and his correspondence."         The Commission noted the findings of fact by the Entry Clearance Officer,   upheld by the Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and their conclusion that, in the circumstances of the instant case, it seemed that the primary purpose of the marriage was to effect the husband's entry into the United Kingdom.   This was borne out by the interview of the applicant's husband with the Entry Clearance Officer.         The Commission recalls that, 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).         This provision presupposes the existence of a family life and at least includes the relationship that arises from a lawful and genuine marriage even if a family life has not been fully established.   The Commission notes that the applicant and her husband have lived together in Bangladesh for four months in 1987 and six months in 1989 and that they have a child.           The Commission recalls, however, that the State's obligation to admit to its territory aliens who are relatives of persons resident there will vary according to the circumstances of the case.   In its judgment, the Court made the following statement:         "The duty imposed by Article 8 (Art. 8) cannot be considered as       extending to a general obligation on the part of a Contracting       State to respect the choice by married couples of the country of       their matrimonial residence and to accept the non-national       spouses for settlement in that country".         (Eur. Court H.R. Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34, para. 68).         The Commission notes that it has not been shown that there were obstacles to establishing family life in the applicant's home country, Bangladesh, from where she originates and lived until she was 12 years of age.         In the circumstances the Commission concludes that the decision to refuse the applicant's husband entry into the United Kingdom has not failed to respect the applicant's right to respect for family life, ensured by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.   Accordingly it follows that the case is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission by a majority           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission           (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)