Applicant name | X., Y., Z., V. & W. |
Applicant type | Natural Person (immigrant) |
Country | United Kingdom |
Decision no. | 3325/67 |
Date | 15/12/1967 |
Judges | –
|
Institution | Commission (Plenary) |
Type | Decision |
Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
Reason | Ratione Materiae; Own Fault |
Type of privacy | Family Privacy |
Keywords | Immigrant; right to family life; ratione materiae; own fault |
Facts of the case | Immigrant’s wife is on UK territory. He is not allowed to enter when she is about to give birth to their child, inter alia, because he does not disclose his reasons for entering UK territory out of fear that his wife might be deported. |
Analysis | This case is interesting two reasons:
1. First, the applicants complain that the immigration authorities initially refused to allow the first Applicant to enter the United Kingdom without restriction. While such would currently presumably be discussed under the right to private and family life, Article 8 ECHR, the Commission here rejects that claim ratione materiae, because such a right fall outside of the scope of the Convention. ‘Whereas the Commission has already held in several decisions that a general right to enter, to reside in, and not to be expelled from, a particular country or a certain part of it, is not as such a right guaranteed by any provision of the Convention, not even for the citizens of that country’. See also the reasoning of the Commission on this point in the case of Greece v. the United Kingdom |
Documents | Decision |