| Analysis |
In this case, the Commission allows more than 30 applications to be bundled in one case, because they all concern individuals who have suffered from the same policy by the UK. It is not a group claim proper, as they do not claim to defend the group interest or submit an application on behalf of the group. Rather, they have all been harmed individually and directly.
The Commission briefly deals with the argument of the British state, namely that although some of the applicants had been refused a residence permit, they were now admitted. Consequently, so the government argues, they can no longer claim to be a victim. The Commission sets aside this argument and stresses that for a period in time, they were to be considered a victim of a violation of the Convention, which can be addressed by the Commission
Interestingly, the Commission finds that the refusal by a State to admit a husband to its territory to join his wife constitutes an interference with the right to respect for family life, but it does not assess whether this could be legitimised under paragraph 2 of Article 8 ECHR, but turns to Article 14 ECHR. In later jurisprudence, the Commission and the Court develop a favour for dealing with cases under a limited set of Articles and only when no violation is found on those points (and only than) deal with potential violations of Articles 14-18 ECHR. In their earlier jurisprudence, it was rather the other way around.
With respect to Article 8+14, the Commission finds that the refusal by a State to admit a husband to its territory to join his wife, where a wife in identical circumstances would have been admitted to join her husband, constitutes discrimination against male immigrants on the ground of sex.
|