Mughal v. the United Kingdom



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 15499/89

by A.M.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

15 February 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

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 8 June 1989 by

A.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 September 1989

under file No. 15499/89;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan born in 1938 and

resident in Lahore, Pakistan.

He complains to the Commission of his deportation from the

United Kingdom on 5 May 1989 where he claims to have lived since 1968

and where he married a British citizen and had three daughters who miss

him very much. However, despite a request for specific documentary

evidence of his immigration status in the United Kingdom and his

appeals, the only relevant document submitted by the applicant is a

notice of refusal of entry dated 4 May 1989 by an Immigration Officer.

This was addressed to the applicant and read as follows:

"You hold an entry clearance endorsed 'Multiple Visits',

but I am satisfied that false representations were

employed and material facts were not disclosed for the

purpose of obtaining this clearance. Furthermore, a

change of circumstances, since it was issued, has removed

the basis of your claim to admission. The visa is not,

therefore, effective. I therefore refuse you leave to

enter the United Kingdom."

The applicant has not explained what could have been the basis

for this decision.

The applicant invokes Articles 1 and 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the

Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Articles

14 and 26 of the Convention. He claims that his family are suffering

enormously because of the separation.

However, the Commission notes that Protocol No. 7 has not been

ratified by the United Kingdom Government. It also observes that the

applicant has submitted no evidence of an interference with his

property rights, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and no

evidence that he has suffered any discrimination in the securement of

his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

Moreover, the Commission finds no substantiation in the case-file of

any appearance of a violation of the applicant's other Convention

rights or freedoms. It follows that the application is, as a whole,

manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 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)