Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom (Applications 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81)

(1985) 7 EHRR 471

Court: ECtHR

Judgment Date: 28/05/1985

Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)

Catchwords & Digest


HUMAN RIGHTS - THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION - RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE CONVENTION - GENERAL RIGHTS - PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION - ON GROUND OF SEX - IMMIGRATION RULES - EFFECT

The applicants had indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Their husbands, who had no other link with the country, sought to join them. The immigration rules in force at the relevant time entitled a husband to join or remain with his wife, who was lawfully settled in the United Kingdom, only if the wife was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies or there existed a territorial birth link. In contrast, a wife could join or remain with her husband, who was lawfully settled in the United Kingdom, whether or not he satisfied these conditions. The husbands were refused entry. On complaints of alleged violation of the European Convention on Human Rights arts 14 (discrimination), 8 (right to family life) and 13 (right to effective remedy):

Held: (i) The United Kingdom's immigration rules were legitimately aimed at protecting the domestic labour market at the time of high unemployment. However, the attainment of sex equality was a major goal of Council of Europe member states and so unequal treatment on the grounds of sex could be regarded as compatible with art 14 only if good reasons were advanced. A difference that might exist between the impact of men and women on the labour market was not a sufficiently good reason as to justify unequal treatment. Accordingly, there had been discrimination on the ground of sex in the securing of the applicants' respect for family life, contrary to art 14, taken in conjunction with art 8.
(ii) There was no discrimination on the grounds of race. The immigration rules made no such distinction and were applicable to all immigrants. The fact that at the relevant time fewer white people were affected by the rules did not alter the conclusion; this disparity resulted not from the application of the rules but from the actual number of would-be immigrants from some ethnic minorities. (iii) Since the Convention had not been incorporated into the United Kingdom's domestic law there was no effective remedy available to the applicants and accordingly there had been a breach of art 13.