## Facts

- The United Kingdom adopted 1980 immigration rules intended to protect the domestic labor market during high unemployment.
- The rules made it easier for a man settled in the United Kingdom to obtain admission or continued residence for his wife than for a woman settled in the United Kingdom to do the same for her husband.
- Three women lawfully and permanently settled in the United Kingdom sought entry or continued residence for their non-national husbands and were refused or restricted under the 1980 rules.
- The applicants challenged the refusals as violating rights relating to family life and non-discrimination, and also alleged inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective remedy.
- The case proceeded through the Convention system to the European Court of Human Rights sitting in plenary.

## Issues

1. Whether immigration decisions affecting spousal admission fall within the ambit of the right to respect for family life under Article 8.
2. Whether refusal or restriction on admitting the applicants’ husbands violated Article 8 taken alone.
3. Whether sex-based differences in spousal admission rules violated Article 14 when read with Article 8.
4. Whether the rules additionally violated Article 14 (with Article 8) on grounds such as race, birth, or national origin.
5. Whether the applicants’ situation amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, alone or with Article 14.
6. Whether the applicants were denied an effective remedy in violation of Article 13.

## Decision

- The Court held that immigration measures can fall within the ambit of Article 8 when they affect family life, permitting Article 14 scrutiny.
- The Court found no violation of Article 8 taken alone, holding there is no general right for a non-national spouse to enter or reside in a particular country and no positive obligation on these facts to admit the husbands.
- The Court found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 because the spousal admission rules treated settled women less favorably than settled men without objective and reasonable justification.
- The Court found no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 on alleged race, birth, or national origin discrimination due to insufficient proof of discrimination on those grounds.
- The Court found no violation of Article 3, concluding the hardship did not reach the minimum severity for inhuman or degrading treatment.
- The Court found no violation of Article 13, concluding available procedures provided an effective means to examine the substance of the complaints.

## Legal Principles

- States retain authority to control entry and residence of non-nationals, but immigration measures may engage Convention protections when they directly affect protected interests such as family life.
- Article 8 protects family life but does not guarantee spouses a right to choose a particular country of residence or an unconditional right to family reunification in a specific state.
- Article 14 applies where the facts fall within the ambit of a substantive Convention right; unequal treatment in that context must have objective and reasonable justification.
- Sex-based distinctions require very weighty reasons; broad generalizations about gender roles are insufficient to justify disadvantaging one sex in the enjoyment of Convention-related interests.
- Distress and disruption from immigration control do not, without more, meet the Article 3 threshold.
- Article 13 requires a procedure capable of addressing the substance of an arguable Convention complaint, not necessarily a particular form of remedy.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the United Kingdom did not breach Article 8 by refusing spousal admission as such, but it did breach Article 14 read with Article 8 by maintaining sex-differentiated spousal immigration rules that lacked objective and reasonable justification; it rejected additional claims under Articles 3 and 13 and race/national-origin discrimination under Article 14.


Abdulaziz, Cabales & Balkandali v. United Kingdom, 7 Eur. H.R. Rep. 471 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1985)