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
- Whether the application was inadmissible because the Convention does not grant a freestanding right to enter and reside in a particular State.
- 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.
- 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.