Applicant name X., Y., Z., V. & W.
Applicant type Natural Person (immigrant)
Country United Kingdom
Decision no. 3325/67
Date 15/12/1967
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
2. Second, the Commission does acknowledge that the exclusion of a person from a country where close members of his family are living, can amount to an infringement of his right to privacy. However, in this matter, the refusal by the authorities of entry or continued residence of the husband did not prevent the wife and children from joining him abroad. Therefore, the Commission concludes, the refusal of one family member to enter the territory of Britain did not lead to a separation of the family members. It was the choice of the family members themselves to remain on British territory. Consequently, there is no interference with the rights of the applicants in this case. This means that if an interference with an applicant’s rights is the result of his own behavior or choice, such will not be interpreted as an infringement on his Convention rights attributable to a Member State.

Documents Decision