CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 avril 1994

.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 }                            Application No. 19018/91                     by H.B.C.                     against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                S. TRECHSEL                A. WEITZEL                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                G.B. REFFI                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY             Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           assisted by Mrs. K. REID.        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 2 August 1991 by H.B.C. against the United Kingdom and registered on 31 October 1991 under file No. 19018/91;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to:   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      28 October 1992;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows: THE FACTS        The applicant is a British citizen born in 1966 in Bangladesh and resident in the United Kingdom since 1975. She is represented before the Commission by Messrs. Hafiz and company, solicitors practising in London. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.        The applicant first met N., a Bangladeshi citizen in 1975. N. had entered the United Kingdom as a student in 1973 and breached his conditions of entry by taking employment. He also overstayed his leave by five years. N. returned to Bangladesh in 1978. He went to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1979 claiming the status of political refugee which was refused. While in Germany, he applied to enter the United Kingdom as the fiancé of the applicant. Leave was refused on 27 October 1983 on the basis that the primary purpose of the marriage was settlement in the United Kingdom. From Germany, he then went to the United Kingdom where he was refused leave to enter on transit. He returned to Bangladesh with the applicant and they were married there on 24 November 1983.        N. made an application for leave to enter the United Kingdom as the spouse of the applicant which was refused on 2 February 1986. His appeal was refused on 4 November 1986. Leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was also refused.        The applicant lived with her husband in Bangladesh until 1986 when she returned to the United Kingdom. She did not like the climate of Bangladesh and her health suffered. She went back to Bangladesh briefly in 1987 and became pregnant. She returned to the United Kingdom and gave birth to a child on 22 October 1987.        The applicant visited Bangladesh on 27 March 1989 where she remained until   May 1990. N. made a fresh application to enter the United Kingdom on the ground of "intervening devotion".        Entry was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer on 6 April 1989. The Adjudicator refused the appeal on 12 February 1991. He found discrepancies in the versions given by the applicant and N. as to the purpose and the surrounding circumstances of their marriage. He noted that N. did not provide the applicant with financial support despite his successful business. He was not convinced that the circumstances of the marriage had changed save for the birth of a child. Having particular regard also to N.'s history of infringing immigration legislation, he upheld the decision that the marriage had been entered into primarily for the purpose of gaining entry to the United Kingdom.        N. was refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on 11 June 1991.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that the refusal of entry to her husband deprives her of the opportunity of enjoying a normal family life. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 2 August 1991 and registered on   31 October 1991.        On 9 September 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.        By letter dated 28 October 1992, the Government informed the Commission's Secretariat that the applicant's husband had been granted entry clearance.        By letter dated 16 November 1992, the Secretariat asked the applicant's solicitors whether they intended to withdraw the application. By letter dated 17 December 1992, the applicant's solicitors replied that the applicant was willing to withdraw but that they wished to make an application for costs.        By letter dated 22 February 1993, the Government informed the Secretariat that it was not willing to pay the applicant's costs. The applicant's solicitors were informed of this and clarification sought of their intentions as to the withdrawal of the case.   By letter dated 18 June 1993, the applicant's solicitors wrote again enquiring about costs, claiming not to have received previous correspondence from the Secretariat. Copies of previous correspondence were sent. When the applicant's solicitors failed to reply, they were warned in letter dated 15 September 1993 from the Secretariat that the application could be struck off. In a letter dated 4 November 1993, the applicant's solicitors replied asking whether they could claim legal aid from the Commission. The forms were sent. In the absence of any further correspondence from the solicitors, they were again warned by letter dated 7 February 1994 that the Commission would proceed to strike the case from its list of cases.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant's husband has been granted entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom. By letter dated 17 December 1992, the applicant's solicitors informed the Secretariat that the applicant was willing to withdraw the application but wished to make an application for costs. While forms necessary for applying for legal aid have been sent to the applicant's representatives, they have failed to reply or to return the forms despite being warned that the Commission might proceed to strike the case from the list.        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the Commission since the matter has been resolved. The Commssion further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.      It follows that the application may be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Commission         President of Commission        (H. C. KRUGER)                      (C. A. NØRGAARD)