The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 March
1986 the following members being present:

              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  J. A. FROWEIN
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  B. KIERNAN
                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J. C. SOYER
                  H. G. SCHERMERS
                  G. BATLINER
             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL

              Mr.  H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 25 March 1985 by
M.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on
26 April 1985 under file N° 11517/85;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1951 in
London.  He is a self-employed leather worker, at present residing in
Dublin, Ireland.  He is represented in proceedings before the
Commission by Mr.  Alistair Logan, solicitor, Guildford, Surrey.

On 12 May 1975 the applicant was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment
at Birmingham Crown Court for an offence of conspiracy to cause
explosions.  He was released from prison on 28 September 1984. Prior
to his release he had been interviewed by officers of the Special
Branch with a view to determining whether or not a recommendation
should be made to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that he
should be excluded from the United Kingdom under the provisions of the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.  The
applicant indicated that he had no longer any interest in politics and
wanted to lead a normal life after his imprisonment.  He stated that
he had no intention in engaging in acts of terrorism on his release.

The applicant was excluded from Great Britain pursuant to Section 4(1)
and (2) of the 1984 Act by an Order of the Secretary of State for Home
Affairs which was served on him on 26 September 1984. The order stated
that the Secretary of State of the Home Office was satisfied that the
applicant "is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism designed to influence public opinion
or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland." On
his release he was escorted from Great Britain on a plane bound for
Dublin.

The applicant states that he spent the early part of his life in the
United Kingdom until his father elected to return to Ireland. Both his
parents were born in Ireland and are therefore Irish citizens.  The
applicant has not elected to become an Irish citizen, nor has he
renounced the citizenship of the United Kingdom.  The applicant has
not been excluded from Northern Ireland but he states that he has no
wish to go to Northern Ireland since he has no connection with it.

COMPLAINTS AND SUBMISSIONS

Article 6 (Art. 6)

The applicant has not been told the nature of the charges against him
which motivate the Exclusion Order.  The only reasons he has been
given are cited in the Exclusion Order that he "is or has been
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of
terrorism designed to influence public opinion or Government policy
with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland".  He contends that an
allegation has been levelled against him of conduct of a criminal
nature which is tantamount to a criminal charge within the meaning of
Art. 6, para. 1 (Art. 6-1).  He complains that the procedure under the
1984 Act does not provide for an independent and impartial tribunal to
consider the charges against him.

In addition, he has been deprived of the rights attached to his United
Kingdom citizenship by arbitrary order without appeal and in breach of
Art. 6, para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

He further complains that the procedure is in violation of the
presumption of innocence under Art. 6, para. 2 (Art. 6-2).  There is an
assumption that he is guilty of some criminal act.  The facts are not
made available to him to enable him to contest them and the burden
lies with him to prove his innocence, contrary to the requirements of
this provision.

He also complains

-       that he has not been informed promptly in a language which he
understands and in detail the nature and cause of the accusation
against him contrary to Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. a (Art. 6-3-a).  In
the absence of any detailed reasons for the suspicions against him
makes it impossible for him to defend himself.

-        that he has been denied adequate time and facilities in order
to prepare his defence contrary to Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. b
(Art. 6-3-b).  He did not avail of the appeal procedure provided under
the 1984 Act since he would have been detained for a further two
months until the appeal procedure had terminated.

-       that he did not have access to examine or have examined those
witnesses whose evidence motivated the Secretary of State to make an
exclusion order, contrary to Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. d (Art. 6-3-d).

Article 7 (Art. 7)

The applicant points out that he has already served the penalty that
was imposed on him for the commission of the offence of conspirary to
cause explosions.  If the decision to exclude the applicant was based
on this original conviction then it constitutes a further punishment
which is imposed retrospectively in breach of this provision.

Article 8 (Art. 8)

The applicant further complains that the decision to exclude him from
Great Britain is an interference with his rights under Art. 8 (Art. 8)
in that his citizenship entitled him to exercise the rights of his
citizenship within the country of his birth.  These rights have now
been taken from him in an arbitrary manner without affording him the
opportunity of defending himself.  He claims that he has been expelled
to a foreign country, albeit one with which he has had a substantial
connection.  He is not a citizen of that country.  He accepts that he
is not excluded from residing in Northern Ireland but states that he
has no real or substantial connection with that country and does not
wish to live there.  Finally, he points out that his exclusion from
Great Britain prevents him from visiting elderly members of his family
who reside there and who supported him during his period of
imprisonment.

Article 9 (Art. 9)

The applicant complains of a breach of this provision if he has been
excluded for any reasons relating to his beliefs.

Article 13 (Art. 13)

The applicant claims that the appeal procedure provided for in the
1984 Act does not constitute an effective remedy since it is not an
independent and impartial body and since he has not been informed of
the reasons underlying his exclusion.

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

The applicant submits that the appeal procedure provided for under the
1984 Act is not an effective remedy since he has no right to know the
nature of the case against him.  Moreover the appeal procedure is not
an impartial procedure as the Government officials involved are aware
of the details of the case against him.  Finally, he points out that
in order to succeed in an action for judicial review of the exclusion
order, he would have to show mala fides on the part of the Secretary
of State.  Since he has not been informed of the nature of the
accusations againt him it would not be possible to make out a case of
mala fides.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains of his exclusion from the United
Kingdom by order of the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 4(1)
and (2) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
1984.  He invokes Arts. 6, para. 1 (Art. 6-1), and Arts. 7, 8, 9 and
13 of the Convention (Art. 7, art. 8, art. 9, art. 13).

2.      The Commission recalls, first of all, that the exclusion of a
person from one part of a country would normally fall to be examined
under Art. 2, para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2-1) which guarantees that
"Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that
territory, have the right of liberty of movement and freedom to choose
his residence."  In the present case, however, no such issue can arise
since the United Kingdom have not ratified this Protocol.

As regards Article 6, para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

3.      The applicant submits that his exclusion involves the
determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Art. 6,
para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

4.       This provision provides inter alia that:

"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone
is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by
an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ..."

5.       The Commission does not, however, consider that this provision
is applicable in the present case.  It considers that the applicant's
exclusion from Great Britain is to be seen as a security measure
because of his suspected involvement in the "commission, preparation
or instigation of acts of terrorism" and not as a criminal penalty.
It refers, in this respect, mutatis mutandis, to the decision of
the European Court of Human Rights in the Guzzardi case (judgment
of 6.11.80, para. 108; see also Dec. No. 7729/76, 17.12.76, D.R. 7
p. 176).

As regards Article 7 (Art. 7)

6.      The applicant complains that the exclusion order could be seen
to constitute an additional penalty retroactively imposed in breach of
Art. 7, para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 7-1).  This provision states:

"1.     No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account
of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence
under national or international law at the time when it was committed.
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was
applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."

7.      The Commission recalls its opinion that the applicant's
exclusion must be seen as a security measure and not as a penalty.  It
accepts that his exclusion may have far-reaching effects on his
situation.  However, if the nature and purpose of the measure is not
that of a penalty, this is not in itself sufficient to bring it within
the scope of Art. 7 (Art. 7).  Accordingly, there is no indication of
a breach of this provision.

As regards Article 8 (Art. 8)

8.      The applicant complains firstly that his rights of citizenship
have been taken away from him arbitrarily in that he is prevented from
living in Great Britain.  He further complains that his exclusion
constitutes an unjustified interference with his right to respect for
family life since he is unable to visit elderly members of his family
who reside there.

9.      Art. 8, para. 1 (Art. 8-1) provides as follows:

"1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence."

10.     As regards the applicant's first complaint under this head, the
Commission considers that this provision does not confer a right to
reside in any particular part of a Convention territory.  Nevertheless
removal to one part of the country may raise an issue concerning
respect for family life under this provision.

11.     However, in the present case, the applicant has been excluded
from Great Britain and prefers to live in Ireland where, it appears,
his father also resides.  Although he alleges that he is prevented
from seeing certain elderly members of his family who supported him
during his imprisonment, he has not indicated the extent of family
links with these relatives or provided any other substantiation of his
complaint in this regard.

12.     In these circumstances the Commission does not consider that
the applicant has shown there to be an interference with his right to
respect for family life under this provision.

As regards Article 9 (Art. 9)

13.     The applicant further contends that his exclusion may
constitute an interference with his freedom of belief contrary to
para. 1 of this provision (Art. 9-1) which protects inter alia
"freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

14.     It is clear, however, that the applicant has been excluded
from Great Britain because of his involvement with a terrorist
organisation, albeit that the precise facts or information on which
the order is based are not known.  The Commission does not consider
that in these circumstances there can be said to be an interference
with his rights under this provision.

As regards Art. 13 (Art. 13)

15.     The applicant further complains that he is denied an effective
remedy as regards the above complaints.  This provision, however, does
not guarantee a remedy in respect of complaints directed against
legislative provisions as in this case (see case of James &
Others, Eur. Ct. H.R., Judgment of  21.2.86, para. 85;  see also
Young, James & Webster v. United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 14.12.79,
para. 177).

16.     The Commission therefore concludes that the application must
be rejected as manifestly ill-founded as a whole within the meaning of
Art. 27, para. 2 of the Convention (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER)                       (C. A. NØRGAARD)