| Applicant name | X. |
| Applicant type | Immigrant |
| Country | UK |
| Decision no. | 7048/75 |
| Date | 09/03/1977 |
| Judges | – |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | Manifestly ill-founded |
| Type of privacy | Family privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Immigrant; reunion; length of procedure; own responsibility |
| Facts of the case | Person acquires a residence permit and maries in Pakistan. Newly wed wife applies for residence permit under a priviledged procedure, which is more speedy. It takes a few months extra, though, because the man is required to join the interview by the government with his wife, while he in unable to due to work commitments in the UK. |
| Analysis | The case is interesting because of two reasons: <p style=”padding-left:25px;”> <br/> 1. It concerns not the expulsion of an illegal immigrant, but the apparent positive obligation of a government. 2. The case does not concern a material right, but the procedural aspect of the case: the length of the procedure.</p> The Commission does not formally address the first question, but does assess the second. In this case the length of the procedure was not unreasonable, among others because the fact that the husband was unable to join his wife for an interview was not something they could be held accountable for. |
| Documents | Decision |