Report 176/56

Applicant name Greece
Applicant type State
Country United Kingdom
Decision no. 176/56
Date 26/09/1958
Judges MM. P. BERG,
C.H.M. WALLOCK,
C. TH. EUSTATHIADES,
P. FABER,
L.J.C. BEAUFORT,
A. SUSTERHENN,
S. PETREN,
G. JANSSEN-PEVTSCHIN, MM. M. S0RENSEN,
J. CROSBIE,
N. ERIM,
F.M. DOMINEDO and F. SKARPHEDINSSON apologised for their inability to attend.
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Report
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Ratione Materiae; legitimised by state of emergency
Type of privacy Private life; Family life; Home
Keywords Exile; deportation resident;
Facts of the case Britain proclaimed emergency measures in Cyprus. Inter alia,

(1) it issued a deportation order, in order to sent to exile from Cyprus Archbishop Makarios and three other Greek Cypriots

(2) It took measures with the following effect
(a) Entry and search of premises without warrant:
(b) Control over burials;
(c) Censorship of correspondence, the press and speeches;
(d) Causing disaffection;
(e) Illegal strikes;
(f) Prohibition of public processions, meetings and assemblies;
(g) Closing pf schools, and
(h) Jamming of broadcasts .

Analysis (1) According to the Commission, Article 8 ECHR does not include a right to reside in the territory of the State of which an individual was a national nor of a right of freedom from exile. It does not imply a general guarantee of an absolute right to reside in the territory of the State of which an individual was a national, and still less in a particular part of the national territory, or of an absolute right not to be exiled.

A minority, however, stressed that when a person is forcibly removed from his home and separated from his family and prohibited from returning, this should be considered an infringement of Article 8.

(2) According to the Commission, these measures should be considered necessary and legitimate because there was a state of emergency (Article 15 ECHR).

Judge Eustathiades dissented and stressed that there was no situation threatening the life of the nation in Cyprus and believed that the interferences could not be justified by the second paragraphs of the Article 8, 9 and 10.

Documents Report I & Report II