CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 avril 1997

.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 }                        Application No. 28573/95                       by Jushna BEGUM and family                       against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 15 April 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 1 September 1995 by Jushna BEGUM and family against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 September 1995 under file No. 28573/95;        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 applicants were named as follows: Mrs. Jushna Begum, a British citizen, her husband Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rahman (deceased 1.8.93), and their children Mohammad Ruhul Islam (born in 1980), Mohammad Amirul Islam (born in 1982), Ayesha Begum (born in 1983), Ruhena Begum (born in 1989). The children are Bangladeshi citizens as was their father. The family were resident in Bangladesh at the time of introduction of the application and represented before the Commission by Omar Faruque & Company, solicitors practising in London.        In September 1989 the spouse and four children of Mrs. Jushna Begum ("the parties"), applied to the British High Commission, Dhaka, for entry clearance to join Mrs. Jushna Begum, a British citizen who was resident and settled in the United Kingdom. The sponsor of the parties was interviewed by immigration officers, whose enquiries concluded that the sponsor's undertaking to accommodate the parties had no foundation in reality. Entry clearance was refused in June 1990, as the Secretary of State was not satisfied that there would be adequate accommodation or that the parties would be able to maintain themselves without recourse to public funds.        An appeal against the decision, lodged on 17 July 1990 in the British High Commission was refused by the Secretary of State.        In April/May 1991 solicitors acting for the applicants submitted further evidence of accommodation to the British High Commission. At an appeal hearing on 17 February 1992 before the adjudicator, the applicants' counsel adduced evidence of a new sponsor who offered accommodation. Since the Home Office report contained conflicting information, the adjudicator adjourned his determination for the Home Office to consider the matter further.        On 12 November 1992 the applicants received a letter which stated that the Secretary of State, having considered the fresh evidence, found no reason to reverse his decision in June 1990, and that the case would now proceed to appeal.        On 1 August 1993 the spouse of Mrs. Jushna Begum, Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rahman, died. The appeal against refusal of entry was continued on behalf of the children.        On 30 March 1994 an appeal was held before an adjudicator. At the time of the appeal Mrs. Jushna Begum was in Bangladesh with her children. The adjudicator noted that it was not clear from the evidence whether Mrs. Jushna Begum intended to return, but that if this were the case she could apply for all of her children (who were all under the age of 18), to be admitted for settlement under paragraph 53 (d) of the Immigration Rules, which specifically concerned the situation of children where one parent is dead and the other parent was settled in the United Kingdom or was to be admitted for settlement. The adjudicator took into account Mrs. Jushna Begum's previous employment and current offer of employment in the United Kingdom and accepted that the children could be maintained without recourse to public funds. He found that the accommodation offered by the sponsor was not available at the time of the June 1990 decision but was reluctant to dismiss an appeal on the basis that circumstances had changed since the first application, particularly as he considered an application under paragraph 53(d) of the Immigration Rules would have been possible and that this would have led to the same result (ie. Entry Clearance Visas being granted). The appeal was accordingly allowed by the adjudicator and entry clearance granted to the children in a determination dated 25 May 1994.        On 3 August 1994 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal granted the Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka, leave to appeal against the determination of 25 May 1994. This appeal was heard on 13 February 1995 and on 10 March 1995 the applicants were notified that the appeal had been allowed on the basis that the accommodation put forward on the original application was inadequate and that at that date it could not be shown the maintenance requirements of the rules were satisfied.        Leave to appeal was refused by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused on 10 April 1995 and by the Court of Appeal on 3 July 1995.     COMPLAINTS        The applicants invoked Articles 3, 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention.        The applicants complained that the treatment they have received from the immigration authorities amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment; interfered with their family life; that Mrs. Jushna Begum's freedom to live with her husband was significantly restricted contrary to Article 12 of the Convention and that Mrs. Jushna Begum had been discriminated against because of her sex, in that if she were a male her children would have been British by birth, with automatic right to entry into the United Kingdom.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 1 September 1995 and registered on 18 September 1995.        By letter dated 19 February 1997, the applicants' solicitors informed that Secretariat that the applicants did not wish to continue with the application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission recalls that the applicants' solicitors have stated that the applicants no longer wish to pursue their complaints.        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application before the Commission. The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.        It follows that the application may be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.        M.F. BUQUICCHIO                               J. LIDDY         Secretary                                  President    to the First Chamber                       of the First Chamber