CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 décembre 1988

.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 }    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 12687/87 by Saira HAMID against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 December 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 10 December 1986 by Saira HAMID against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 February 1987 under file No. 12687/87;           Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure         of the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 13 July 1987 to bring the         application to the notice of the respondent Government         and invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibility and merits;        -   information provided by the Government on 25 November         1987 and 22 June 1988;        -   information provided by the applicant's representative         on 8 September 1988 ;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, resident in London, and she is represented before the Commission by Mr.   Don Flynn of the North Islington Law Centre.           The facts according to the applicant and the official documentation lodged with the application may be summarised as follows:           The applicant's parents are citizens of Pakistan settled in the United Kingdom and on one of the applicant's rare visits to Pakistan the applicant married a Pakistani citizen in 1983.   In January 1984 he was refused entry clearance to live with the applicant in the United Kingdom because the immigration authorities considered that the marriage was primarily entered into to obtain his admission to the United Kingdom, contrary to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 169 (paragraph 54 of these Rules was subsequently amended to remove differences in treatment between men and women).   This decision was upheld by an Adjudicator and Immigration Appeal Tribunal (decision of 6 March 1986).   However, on 25 November 1987 the Government informed the Commission that they had decided to review the case and on 22 June 1988 further informed the Commission that entry clearance had been granted to the applicant's husband for a period of 12 months, with the possibility of renewal.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of sexual discrimination allegedly embodied in the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 169, in force at the material time, and in Section 1 (5) of the Immigration Act 1971.   She invokes Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   She wishes to maintain her application to the Commission despite the entry clearance granted to her husband because he has not been given indefinite leave to remain at the outset and thus she has not benefitted from Section 1 (5) of the Immigration Act 1971 ; five years have elapsed between the marriage and entry clearance and she has incurred considerable expense travelling to and from Pakistan to visit her husband during that period.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 10 December 1986 and registered on 2 February 1987.           After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the case on 13 July 1987 and decided, pursuant to Rule 42 paragraph 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that the Government be invited to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           On 25 November 1987 the Government informed the Commission that, whilst the applicant's Convention submissions were not accepted, they would nevertheless reconsider the case of the applicant's husband.   On 22 June 1988 the Government further informed the Commission that they had decided to grant the applicant's husband entry clearance for a period of 12 months in the first instance.   The applicant's representative submitted on 8 September 1988 that the applicant nevertheless wished to maintain her application for the reasons outlined above (see COMPLAINTS).     THE LAW           The applicant complains of sexual discrimination in immigration rules in force at the material time and in immigration legislation, by which her Pakistani husband was originally denied entry clearance into the United Kingdom.   She claims to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (right to respect for family life, subject to certain limited exceptions) and Article 14 (Art. 14) (freedom from discrimination in the securement of Convention rights and freedoms), in relation to which she claims to have had no effective domestic remedies, contrary to Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           However, the Commission notes that the Government have reviewed their original decision and that the applicant's husband has been granted entry clearance which can be renewed.   Moreover, the difference in treatment between the sexes in the immigration rules, of which complaint has also been made by the applicant, has been abolished.   In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the factual basis of the applicant's complaint has been resolved and that she can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25).           It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)