## Facts

- The United Kingdom enacted the **Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968** after an increase in immigration by **Asians from Africa**.
- The applicants were **East African Asians of Indian origin** who were **British nationals** and sought entry to the United Kingdom.
- Under the 1968 Act and related actions, several applicants were **refused entry** to the United Kingdom or were allowed to enter only subject to **special restrictive conditions**.
- The applicants filed a petition to the **European Commission of Human Rights**, alleging that the United Kingdom’s treatment of them amounted to **degrading treatment** in violation of **Article 3** and **discrimination** in violation of **Article 14** (in conjunction with Convention rights).
- The United Kingdom objected to admissibility, arguing that there is **no international right to enter and reside in a particular country**, and that the application therefore fell outside the Convention’s reach.

## Issues

1. Whether the application was inadmissible because the Convention does not grant a freestanding right to enter and reside in a particular State.
2. Whether the alleged refusal of entry, or entry only on special conditions, could in the circumstances amount to **degrading treatment** within the meaning of **Article 3**.
3. Whether the applicants’ allegations of unequal treatment connected to race or ethnic origin raised an arguable claim of **discrimination** contrary to **Article 14**, taken with the relevant Convention protections.

## Decision

- The Commission did not accept the United Kingdom’s position that the absence of a general right of entry and residence automatically barred Convention review of the applicants’ complaints.
- The Commission treated the application as capable, in principle, of engaging **Articles 3 and 14** where immigration control is alleged to be carried out in a manner that is degrading and discriminatory.
- The Commission allowed the complaints under **Articles 3 and 14** to proceed past the admissibility barrier because they were not excluded as a matter of principle and were sufficiently arguable to warrant examination.

## Legal Principles

- The Convention does **not** guarantee a general right for a person to **enter and reside** in a particular country.
- Even without a general right of entry, a State’s immigration measures may still be assessed under the Convention when the **manner** or **effects** of the measures are alleged to violate protected rights.
- **Article 3** can reach state action that seriously humiliates or debases individuals, including treatment alleged to mark a group out for contempt in a way that harms human dignity.
- **Article 14** prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights; alleged differential treatment connected to race or ethnic origin may fall within Article 14 when linked to another Convention protection relied upon by the applicant.
- At the admissibility stage, the Commission asks whether the complaint is within the Convention’s scope and is **arguable**, rather than deciding the full merits.

## Conclusion

In *Patel et al. v. United Kingdom*, the European Commission of Human Rights addressed complaints by East African Asian British nationals affected by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, rejecting the view that the lack of a general right to enter and reside foreclosed review and treating the applicants’ claims under Articles 3 and 14—degrading treatment and discrimination arising from the challenged immigration measures—as capable of examination under the Convention.


Patel et al. v. United Kingdom, [1970] Y.B. Eur. Conv. on Human Rights 928, 990 (1970)