The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them.
Held: Article 8 did not impose a ‘general obligation on the part of a Contracting State to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to accept the non-national spouses for settlement in that country’.
‘Whatever else the word ‘family’ may mean, it must at any rate include the relationship that arises from a lawful and genuine marriage . . even if a family life . . has not yet been fully established’.
Citations:
9473/81, [1985] ECHR 7, 9214/80, 9474/81, (1985) 7 EHRR 471
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Ali and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Immigration, Family
Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445027
