CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 19 octobre 1995

.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 Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 7 February 1989 by Mr Aboullah Yousef against the United Kingdom (Application No. 14830/89);        Whereas on 25 August 1992 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;        Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 8 November 1990, the applicant complained that the refusal to allow him to re-enter the United Kingdom in order to facilitate access to his son was in breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention and that, contrary to Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, he had not had any effective domestic remedy in respect of his claim under Article 8 (art. 8);        Whereas in its report adopted on 30 June 1992, the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had not been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention but that there had been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 491st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 1 April 1993, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention but that there had been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 21 January 1994;        Whereas, at the 510th meeting of the Deputies held on 21 March 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, that the Government of the United Kingdom was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 500 British pounds in respect of non-material damage and 7 100 British pounds in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 7 600 British pounds;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 1 April 1993 and 21 March 1994, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by them;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 24 March 1995, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicant the total sum of 7 600 British pounds in just satisfaction,        Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;        Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 246   Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the case of Yousef against the United Kingdom by the Committee of Ministers        On 1 October 1994 a Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules ("the Rules") came into force which changed the practice to be followed in the administration of the Immigration Acts of 1971 and 1988 for the regulation of entry into and the stay of persons in the United Kingdom.        Paragraph 246 of the Rules sets out the criteria to be satisfied for a new category of persons seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom in order to gain access to a child resident in the United Kingdom.   The new criteria require that the person concerned:        "- produces evidence that a court in the United Kingdom has granted him access rights to his child; and        - is seeking leave to enter for the purpose of exercising access rights to his child; and        - is either divorced or legally separated from the other parent of the child; and        - intends to leave the United Kingdom at the expiry of his leave to enter; and        - does not intend to take employment in the United Kingdom; and        - does not intend to produce goods or provide services within the United Kingdom, including the selling of goods or services direct to members of the public; and        - will maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants adequately out of resources available to him without recourse to public funds or taking employment; or will, with any dependants, be maintained and accommodated adequately by relatives or friends; and        - can meet the cost of the onward or return journey; and        - holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity."         Paragraph 247 of the Rules establishes a twelve month time limit during which anyone who is granted leave to enter the United Kingdom under paragraph 246 may remain in the United Kingdom.   Such a person may apply for further leave once the initial twelve month period elapses provided an access order is still in force.        Those persons who are refused leave to enter the United kingdom have a right of appeal to an adjudicator and then to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal by virtue of section 13 of the Immigration Act 1971.        It is the opinion of the United Kingdom Government that the creation of this new category of entry clearance, combined with the right of appeal to an adjudicator, and, if necessary, with an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, has established a remedy which offers sufficient guarantees of efficacity to meet the requirements of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention and which will thus prevent the repetition of the violation found in the present case.