| Applicant name | X. and Y. |
| Applicant type | Immigrant |
| Country | UK |
| Decision no. | 7229/75 |
| Date | 15/12/1977 |
| Judges | – |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | No interference |
| Type of privacy | Family privacy |
| Keywords | Adoption; immigrant |
| Facts of the case | Applicant and wife, UK citizens, adopt nephew from India. UK refuses family reunion between adoptive parents and adopted child. |
| Analysis | This case is interesting because although in practice the case is simple (it seems evident that the nephew is adopted for the very reasons of obtaining a residence permit, inter alia because his biological parents are still alive, are able to take care of him and he is studying in India) it reasons interesting legal questions. The first question is whether there is family life between the adoptive parents and the adopted child: no, says the Commission, because there are no ‘factual ties’. Thus, in order to determine whether there is a ‘family life’, three aspects must be distinguished: biological ties, legal ties and factual ties. The existence of legal ties, in this case, is not enough for family life to exist. The second question is, can the appliant invoke Article 8 ECHR because he wants to establish factual family ties, by having come over his adopted child: no, says the Commission, because the right to privacy only protects already established family life, not establishing family life as such. The third and final question is, can the applicant invoke Article 12 ECHR which explicitly guarantees the right to found a family: no, ways the Commission, because that provision only guarantees the right to establish family life through biological means. Consequently, there has been no interference with applicant’s rights as guaranteed under the Convention. |
| Documents | Decision |