AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12392/86
by M.A.
against the United Kingdom


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
  the 13 July 1987, the following members being present:

                   MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                        J.A. FROWEIN
                        S. TRECHSEL
                        F. ERMACORA
                        E. BUSUTTIL
                        A. WEITZEL
                        J.C. SOYER
                        H.G. SCHERMERS
                        H. DANELIUS
                        G. BATLINER
                   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 23 June 1986
by M.A. against the United Kingdom and registered
on 15 September 1986 under file No. 12392/86.

        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 1964
and resident in F., England.  She is a housewife by
profession.  The applicant is represented before the Commission by
Messrs.  Mayne Lidgey, Solicitors, London.

        The facts as submitted by the applicant, and which are
apparent from official documentation lodged with the application, may
be summarised as follows:

        On 2 September 1985 the applicant married an Egyptian citizen
who at that stage was already in breach of immigration regulations,
having unlawfully overstayed.  On 5 September 1985 her husband applied
for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of the
marriage.  On 30 January 1986 that leave was refused as the Secretary
of State was "not satisfied that the marriage was not entered into
primarily to obtain settlement" in the United Kingdom, and furthermore,
as the husband had remained in breach of the Immigration Rules.

        Representations were made to the Secretary of State through
the applicant's Member of Parliament.  In a letter dated 5 June 1986
the Secretary of State replied to the Member of Parliament as follows:

        "As you are probably aware, under the Immigration Rules an
        extension of stay or leave to remain will not be granted to
        a man admitted in a temporary capacity who marries a woman
        settled here unless the Secretary of State is satisfied,
        amongst other things, that the marriage is not entered into
        primarily to obtain settlement here and that the applicant
        has not remained in breach of the immigration laws. (1)

        Mr.  Abdel-Aziz has a very poor immigration history having
        illegally overstayed for more than two years and having
        worked in breach of his landing conditions.  He has admitted
        that he does not wish to do his military service in Egypt and
        would instead like to settle here.  He entered into marriage
        a few weeks after being convicted of overstaying and in the
        sure knowledge that he had no further basis of stay in this
        country.

        As you know, Mr.  Abdel-Aziz's application was refused on
        30 January.  Nevertheless, I have very carefully reviewed
        our decision in the light of your representations and with
        reference to the report of Mr. and Mrs.  Abdel-Aziz's
        interview with the Immigration Service, but I am afraid that
        I can see no grounds for reversing it.  As further explained
        on the notice of refusal, Mr.  Abdel-Aziz has no right of
        appeal under the Immigration Act 1971 against our decision
        because the application was made after his leave to remain
        had expired."
______________

(1)     Paragraph 124 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration
Rules HC 503 (amending HC 169) provides that a person with limited
leave seeking an extension of stay on the basis of a marriage to a
person settled in the United Kingdom will not be granted that leave
unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, inter alia, that the
marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain settlement and that
the applicant has not remained in breach of the immigration laws.

        The deportation order was not enforced immediately thereafter
because the applicant was pregnant.  A son was born to the couple on
20 May 1986.

        The applicant has not informed the Commission of any further
developments in her family's situation since then.


COMPLAINTS

        The applicant complains that the refusal to allow her husband
to remain in the United Kingdom denies her right to respect for family
life and constitutes sexual discrimination contrary to Articles 8 and
14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant has complained of the refusal by British
immigration authorities to allow her Egyptian husband to remain in the
United Kingdom with her.  She has invoked Articles 8 and 14 (Art. 8, 14)
of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide as follows:

        Article 8 (Art. 8)

        "1.     Everyone has the right to respect for ...
        family life, ...

        2.      There shall be no interference by a public authority
        with the exercise of this right except such as is in
        accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
        society ... for the prevention of disorder or crime ... "

        Article 14 (Art. 14)

        "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
        Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any
        ground such as sex, race, ... national or social origin,
        ... or  other status."

2.      The Commission recalls its constant case-law that whilst the
Convention does not guarantee a right, as such, to enter or remain in
a particular country, when a person is excluded from a country where
his close relatives are entitled to reside an issue may arise under Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention (cf. e.g.  No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219,
No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29
p. 205).

        In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant's
husband has illegally overstayed in the United Kingdom.  His marriage
to the applicant was contracted at a time when he must have been aware
of his precarious immigration status.  There do not appear to be
insurmountable obstacles to the applicant and her son following her
husband to Egypt.  The applicant has not contested the lawfulness of
the immigration authorities' refusal to allow her husband to remain in
the United Kingdom, which refusal was taken to enforce immigration
controls pursuant to the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC
503.

        Thus, in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission
finds that the refusal of the husband's leave to remain constitutes an
interference with the applicant's right to respect for family life
under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.  Nevertheless, the
Commission must attach significant weight to the reasons for the
refusal.  The Commission finds with regard to the second paragraph of
Article 8 (Art. 8) that there are no elements concerning respect for family
life which might outweigh valid considerations relating to the proper
enforcement of immigration controls.  In this respect the Commission
would emphasise the close connection between the policy of immigration
control and considerations pertaining to public order.  The Commission
is of the opinion, therefore, that the interference with the
applicant's right to respect for family life was in accordance with
the law and justified as being necessary in a democratic society "for
the prevention of disorder", under the second paragraph of Article 8
(Art. 8), as a legitimate measure of immigration control.

        Accordingly, this aspect of the application must be rejected
as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.      Finally, as regards the applicant's complaint of
discrimination in the securement of her family life rights, the
Commission finds the applicant's claim wholly unsubstantiated,
particularly in the light of the text of paragraph 124 of the
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 503 (p. 2 above), which
makes no sexual or other distinction between persons with limited
leave seeking an extension of stay on the basis of a marriage to a
person settled in the United Kingdom.

        This part of the application is, therefore, also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of 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)