clr/1988/1988_3_2127.pdf

(1988)As theapplication was turneddown, bothappellants filedarecourseto thisCourt.Thisisanappealagainstthedecision,dismissingtherecourse. Thefirst appellantwithdrew therecourse. Theissuesthatremainedfor considerationwere: (a)Whether thesecondappellantpossessesalegitimateinteresttoimpugnthesubjudicedecision, (b)Whether theactisconfirmatory oftheactofexpulsion,and (c)Whether therehasbeenaninterferencewith therighttoprivate life, . protectedby Art. 15of theConstitutionandArt. 8of the Conven­ tion fortheProtectionof HumanRights. Held,dismissing theappeal:

(1)Familylifeismadeupinthe firstplace bythepartnershipofa husbandandwife.Eitherof themhasalegitimatein­ terest toimpugn administrative actionthataffects his share in the family unit.Therefore,thewifeinthiscasehasalegitimate interesttopursuethe proceedings. 5 10 15

(2)Thesubjudicedecision isofanexecutory nature, becausenew facts wereputbefore theadministrationandtherehadbeenanew inquiry.

(3)Ithasbeenestablished thattheappellant-wife,hasnodifficulty and therearenotlegalorotherimpedimentsinjoining herhusbandinGreeceof which heisa national,andasofrightresiding andlivingwith himinthat 20 country. Itfollows thatthefamily unitcould bepreserved by establishing the family residenceinGreece.Inthelightof thisfact theStatecannotbeheld as having interfered with therighttorespect for family life.Suchalimita­ tiononthenotionof interference isnecessary, otherwise theexpulsion or 25 refusal of admission,whenever family life was established, would be pro­ hibited. Appealdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 30 Casesreferredto: X and Υ v. U.K.(Appl.5269/71, Year Book XV, p.564, Coll.39 p.104); Appl.3325/

1. (Yearbook X,p.528); Dec.Adm,Com.Appl.5301/71, CoU.43, p.
2. 2128 3 CX.R. Balalas &Another v. Republic Appeal. 5 -τ * • Appeal against thejudgmentofaJudgeoftheSupreme Court of Cyprus,(Loris, J.) given on the 22nd October, 1987 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No.476/84)* whereby appellants'recourseagainst therefusal by therespondentsofapermitto appel­ lant 1 toenterCyprus was dismissed. A. Argyrides,for A. Eftychiou, fortheappellants. D.Papadopoulou (Mrs.), for the respondents. Cur.adv. vult. 1 0 15 20 25 A.LOIZOUP. readthefollowingjudgmentoftheCourt. This is anappealfromthejudgmentofaJudgeof thisCourtbywhich hedismissed theapplicationofthetwo appellants who arehus­ band andwife, with which-they wereclaiming "adeclaration of theCourt thattheaptand/ordecisionoftherespondents refusing apermittothehusbandtoenterCyprusisnullandvoidandwith nolegal effect." Thesaiddecision was reachedafter counselfor theapplicants addressed aletteronbehalf ofthewife totheDirectoroftheDe­ partmentofImmigrationonthe14thJune 1984,by whichhewas informing theAuthorities thatthehusbandofhisclienthad been deported from Cyprus asaresult ofacomplaint lodged by her andastheyhadsincethenreconciled,shewantedafullrestitution of herrelationswithhimandwas askingtheaddresseeof that let­ tertotake the.necessary steps,so thather husband would beallowed toreturntoCyprus.Tothis request respondent2,replied thattheentryofherhusbandinCyprus "was notatpresentdesir­ able". · • ^ 4 ThehusbandisaGreekNationalwhocametoCyprusfor the first timein 1968.HemarriedaCypriotgirlandachildwasborn *Reportedin

(1987)3CLJt. 1286. 2129 A. Loizou P. Balalas & Another v. Republic

(1988)outof that wedlock. During thesubsistenceof thatmarriage he wasreported to thePolicerepeatedly for beating and deserting her.After severalconvictionsforassaultinghisfirst wifeandobtaining money byfalse pretenceshewasdeportedfromCyprus andhisnamewasplacedontheStop-List. 5 Ultimately,however,hewasallowedtoreturntoCyprus.His first marriagewasdissolvedonthe27thApril 1972,andhemarried the present appellant in 1975.It seems that hecould not, however,changehisbrutalanddishonestwayoflife andhewas reportedrepeatedlybyherfor assaultingheranddesertingher. JQ Onthe17thApril 1981,theImmigrationAuthoritiesgrantedto thehusband afinal temporarypermit toresideandworkinCyprus,valid until the 30th August 1981.Onthe21st April 1982, hewasdeclared bytheAuthoritiesasaprohibited immigrant.A deportation orderwasissued underSection 14of theAliensand Immigration Law, Cap. 105, and he was once more deported from CyprusandhisnamewasplacedontheStopList. ^ Arecoursewasfiledagainstthatdeportation orderbythehusband,butsamewaswithdrawnonthe15thSeptember1982. Inthecourseof thehearingofthisappeallearnedcounsel for 20 thetwoappellantsaskedfor leavetowithdrawtheappealofthe husbandastheletterofthe 14thJuly 1984,whichcausedthesub judicedecision tobetaken wasnotwrittenonhisbehalf andthe recoursehasbeen basedon thatdecision.Theappealof the first appellantwasthenstruckoutandlearnedcounselproceededwith 25 that of the wife, i.e. the second appellant. He confined his groundsofappealtothefollowingtwo. "(a)ThatthedecisionofthetrialCourtthatapplicant2,has neverhadlegitimateinterestasenvisaged byArticle 146.2of theConstitution iswrongand/ornotsupported and/orunjusti- 30 fiable,havingregard to theevidence,and/or material and/or factsadducedand/oravailabletotheCourt.And 2130 3CX.R. Balalas&Another v.Republic A.LoizouP. (b)ThatthetrialCourtfailed entirelyand/oradequatelyto examinethesubmissionof applicant 2,thatbythesubjudice decisiontherighttoprivateandfamily lifeofthisapplicantas envisagedbyArticle 15of,theConstitutionandArticle8

(2)5 ·• oftheEuropeanConventionofHumanRightsratified byLaw No.39of 1962,isviolated." Ithasbeenarguedonbehalfoftherespondentsthatthesubjudicedecisionwasaconfirmatory oneofthepreviousdecisionby whichthehusbandwasdeclaredaprohibited immigrantandde10 .portedfromCyprus.This matter, however, is interwoven with theissuewhetherawifehasalegitimateinteresttopursueonher own in such circumstances arecourse under Article 146of the Constitution againsttherefusal oftheImmigrationAuthoritiesto allowherhusbandtoenterCyprusbyrevokingorcancellingany jc decisiondeclaring.himaprohibited,immigrantorrefusing toremovehisnamefromtheStop-List. · > •r. - 20 Inourview,family life is made up in thefirstplace by the partnershipof ahusbandandwife.Therefore ifthefamily lifeis violated by any measure of the administration aimed at oneof them andinconsequence thereof separating themor interfering withordisruptinganexistingfamily unit,therighttorespectfor a.person'sfamily life isviolated andeither of themhasalegitimateinteresttochallengesuchadecision totheextentthatit affects hisshareinthefamily unit.Onthispointtherefore theappealsucceedsinthattheappellantwifehasalegitimateinterestto proceedwiththiscase. . . . . As regards the issue whether the subjudice decision wasa confirmatory oneofthedecisiontodeclarehimaprohibitedimmigrant anddeport himfromCyprus the short answer is that the •*" wifebyherletterintroducednewfacts whichcalledforanewinquiry, whichindeed wascarried out bytherespondents andresultedinanewexecutorydecision thatcouldbemadethesubject ofarecoursebythewife. Thesecondgroundof Law wasnotexamined bythelearned 2131 A.Loizou P. Balalas &Another v.Republic

(1988)trialJudgewhodid notproceed toconsider therecourseonthe merits because of hisconclusion on thepreliminary objections, mainlythatoflackoflegitimateinterestandthatthesubjudicedecision wasnot executory but aconfirmatory one and therefore couldnotbemadethesubjectofarecourse,theoriginalactbeing 5 distantandcertainlynothavingoccurredbefore thelapseofseventy-fivedaysfromthedateofthefilingoftherecourse. Inrelation tothisground,ithasbeenasserted tooursatisfaction,that theappellant-wife, hasnodifficulty andtherenolegal orotherimpedimentinjoiningherhusbandinGreeceofwhichhe ^Q isanational,andasofrightresidingandlivingwithhiminthat country. Article 8of the European Convention and Article 15of our Constitution which weshall setoutinfull hereinafter areforall intentsandpurposesinsofar asweareconcernedinthiscasethe 15 same,buttherighttorespectofcorrespondenceiscoveredinour Constitution byArticle

1. "
2. Everyone hastherightto respect for his private and family life,hishomeandhiscorrespondence. 2.Thereshallbenointerference byapublicauthoritywith 20 theexerciseofthisrightexceptsuchasisinaccordancewith thelawandisnecessaryinademocraticsocietyintheinterests ofnationalsecurity,publicsafety ortheeconomicwell-being ofthecountry,fortheprevention ofdisorderorcrime,forthe protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the 25 rights andfreedomsofothers. ARTICLE 15 1.Every person hastherighttorespectfor hisprivateand familylife. 2.There shall benointerference with theexercise of this 30 right exceptsuchasisinaccordancewiththelawandisneces2132 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 OQ Balalas & Another v. Republic A. LoizouP. sary only intheinterestsof the security of theRepublic orthe constitutional order or thepublic safety or the public orderor . thepublic·health or thepublic morals or for theprotectionof the rights and liberties guaranteed by,this Constitutiontoany -person." * . .. r Article 8of theConventionhas been the subject ofinterpreta­ tion by theorgans entrusted with the supervision of its applica­ tion.Itprohibits inprincipleandsubject totheprovisions of para­ graph 2,interference with anexisting family unitandithas as its principalelementtheprotection of theintegrity of the family. One of the situations thathave been raised underthesaid Article isthe case where some action by the authorities, such as expelling a person from acountry orrefusing toadmit someonemay resultin • separation of husband andwife. ^ , ^ Themattertherefore thatneeds tobe inquired into,inrelation to thefacts of thepresent case, is whether the family unitcould not be preserved by establishing the family's residence in the country towhich theexpelled^member resides, orfromwhich he seeks admission. If.the family unit could be so preserved, then theStatecannotbe held as having interfered with therightto re­ spect for family life. Such,a limitation of the notionof interfer­ enceisnecessary otherwise theexpulsion orrefusal of admission whenever family life was established, would beprohibited. Reference may be madetotwo decisions of theCommission, the first one is the case of X and Υ v. U.K. Application No. 5269/71, YBXV p/564 (572-574), Coll. 39 iP /.lQ4, at pp 107108,where it was said: "The Commission is of theopinion thattheapplicationpri­ marily falls tobe considered underArt. 8 which provides,inter alia, that everyone has the right to respect for his family life. Itobserved thatithaspreviously held thattheexclusion of a person,from a country where close members of his family are living may amountto an infringement of this right. Ina number of such cases the Commission has considered situa2133 A.Loizoo P. Balalas& Another v.Republic

(1988)tions where,asinthepresentcase,amarriedmanisforced to leaveaStateinwhichheislivingwithhiswife.TheCommissionhastreatedasarelevantfactorinsuchcasesthepossibilityforthewifetofollow herhusband(seee.g.ApplicationNo. 2535/65,CollectionofDecisions 17,pp.28-30andtheabove- 5 mentioneddecisiononApplication No.4403/70andothersat p. 120)." ThiswasacaseofaCypriotcitizenthentwenty-twoyearsold whoentered theUnited Kingdom as a student and married the secondapplicant,aUnitedKingdomcitizenofCypriotorigin,in JQ April 1970.Havingbecomeaparttimestudentonly hewas refuse^ permission by the Home Secretary to stay in theUnited Kingdomindefinitely andwasaskedtoleavethecountryinJanuary 1971.Theappealagainstthisdecisionultimatelyfailed andhe was again requested to leave the United Kingdom in August ,,1971.Amongthereasonsadvancedwasthatforanumberofpersonalreasonsthewifemightbereluctanttofollow herhusband. TheCommission,however,wassatisfied thattherewerenolegal obstaclesfortheapplicantseffectively toestablishtheirfamily life in Cyprusif thefirst applicant weretoreturn tothatcountry.-A refusal byhertodothisbecauseshechosestostayintheUnited kingdom (assheisentitled todo)doesnotinthecircumstances ofthecasemeanthattherehasbeentherebyaninterference bythe United Kingdomauthoritieswiththeapplicant'sfamily lifewithinthemeaningofArticle8

(1)oftheConvention. 25 TheCommissionreferred inthisrespecttothedecisionofadmissibility of Application No.3325/67, Yearbook 10pp.528, 536. The second case (Dec Adm. Com Ap. 5301/71, 3 October 1972Coll.43p.82

(84)isthatofaUnitedKingdomcitizenmarried toanIndiancitizenwhoaftertheirmarriagein 1965settledin Kenya.Thefirst applicant then went and lived inLondon with theirchildandtheycomplainedthatthehusband,thesecondapplicantwasrefused permissiontosettleinEngland.Theredidnot appeartobeanylegalobstaclespreventingtheapplicantandhis 35 2134 3 C.L.R. 5 Balalas & Another v.Republic wife from living together in India,but the second applicant had saidonly that ashis wife preferred theUnited Kingdom toIndia andthat hetoodesired tobelorig tothat civilisation to'which his wifehastaken aliking,heshould bepermitted tosettleinU.K.It washeldthat:• . 10 15 2Q A. LoizouP. ' ,> "The Commission would not suggest that, where acouple isrefused-residence inacountryof whichoneof themisanational, there is no violation of Article 8 simply because they canfindsomelegalresidenceelsewhere.If theonlylegalresidencewhichtheycanfind isinacountryconnectedwitheither of them,theexclusionfromresidence inthe'home'countryof oneof themmightconstituteaviolationof Article8.Butinthe presentcasetheapplicantandhiswife appear tobeabletoresidelegally inIndia andIndiaistheapplicant'scountryoforigin;Furthermore, the applicant and his wife were married in Kenyaatatimewhen theywerefully awarethattheapplicant might notbeallowed toentertheUnited Kingdom. • The Commissionhas thus considered the present application under both.Articles 8 and 12 of the'Convention. It can find no ground on which to distinguish it from Application No.5269/71 and notes alsothat.thereisnot even anysuggestion in thepresent case (asthere was in Application 5269/71) * thattheapplicant'swifehasotherfamilytiesinBritain. s 25 ' Dec.Adm. Com. Ap.5301/71,3 October 19,72Coll.43p. 82

(84)." OQ For all the above reasons the appeal is dismissed'and the sub judice decision is confirmed in whole under Article 146.4(a)of theConstitution asonthemerits alsothesubjudicedecision was reasonably opentotheadministration.Inthecircumstances,however,therewillbenoorderastocosts. Appealdismissed. • No orderastocosts. 2135