1. See, inter alia, Tomuschat, Chr., “Freizügigkeit nach deutschem Recht und Völkenecht”, Die öffentliche Verwaltung (1974) pp. 759-61.Google Scholar

2. See, inter alia, Appl. 3962/69, 13 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1970) pp. 688-91Google Scholar (Hereafter abbreviated: Yearbook).

3. Conclusions I p. 79–80; II p. 62; III p. 86; IV p. 112.

4. See, for other facilities with regard to emigration of migrant workers, pp. 28–9.

5. See the First, Second and Third Periodical Reports of the Standing Committee on the European Convention on Establishment pp. 11–22, 4–9, 7–14, respectively.

6. See, for other facilities with regard to immigration of migrant workers, pp. 28–9.

7. The Establishment Convention merely mentions temporary visits without defining them but, without exception, the Contracting Parties seem to take this to mean a visit of up to three months.

8. See also, the Report on the Legal Status of Aliens (Rapporteur: Mr. Piket) of 2 Oct. 1975, Doc. 3666.

9. See First Report pp. 11–22; Third Report pp. 7–14. More favourable treatment is certainly not granted by Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Sweden. As far as the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway are concerned, it is difficult to establish from the text of the reports whether they grant more favourable treatment, owing to the general character of the remarks made by the governments concerned. In the case of the Netherlands, for example, one certainly could not speak of more favourable treatment in practice. None of the countries mentioned here seem to have adopted less strict legislation or policy over the years.

10. See, on the right to engage in a gainful occupation, pp. 22–5.

11. See, Conclusion II pp. 60–1.

12. See further, pp. 25–6.

13. See further, pp. 27–8.

14. See, pp. 13–15, 18–19.

15. See, inter alia, Appl. 434/58 (2 Yearbook (1958–1959) pp. 354–76), Appl. 6501/74 (Decisions and Reports 1 pp. 80–1).

16. See p. 12.

17. From this the Committee of Independent Experts drew the conclusion that Art. 19(6) is not applicable to husbands rejoining their wives working in the territory of a Contracting Party, but only to children. See, Conclusion IV p. 127; Conclusion V p. 136. This has resulted in a strange, but recurrent discrimination between the sexes. Should the Appendix indeed leave room for no other interpretation than that of the Committee, then alterations on this point are to be strongly recommended.

18. Conclusions I p. 85; II pp. 69–70; III pp. 94–9; IV pp. 125–7, 132. See, for a more extensive discussion, Kammermann, J., Der Familiennachzug der ausländische Arbeitskräfte (Zürich 1976) pp. 189-96Google Scholar. The Digest of Case-Law on Migrant Workers, Arts. 18 and 19 of the European Social Charter (Strasbourg, 1978)Google Scholar contains a very useful synopsis of the Committee's points of view with regard to Arts. 18 and 19.

19. Conclusions I p. 85; II p. 69; III pp. 94, 96; IV pp. 125–6; V p. 136.

20. See, inter alia, Conclusion I p. 81.

21. Conclusions I p. 85; II p. 69.

22. Conclusions I p. 85; II p. 69; III pp. 95–7; IV p. 127; V pp. 134–6.

23. Conclusions II p. 69; IV p. 125. However, the Committee remains interested in shorter waiting-periods.

24. As in Conclusion IV, Norway and the United Kingdom. See also Opinion 71 (1975) of the Parliamentary Assembly.

25. Earlier drafts of the Convention also included his and his wife's ascendants who are dependent on him; see Doc. 2784 p. 11. This would have made the regulations more like those of the European Communities.

26. Earlier drafts mentioned waiting-periods of up to two years; see Doc. 2784 p. 11.

27. See on this subject, inter alia, Castberg, F., The European Convention on Human Rights (Leiden, 1974) pp. 143-5Google Scholar; Fawcett, J.E.S., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, 1969) pp. 188-94Google Scholar; Goodwin-Gill, G.S., International Law and the Movement of Persons between States (Oxford, 1978) pp. 161-7Google Scholar; Jacobs, F.G., The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, 1975) pp. 129-35Google Scholar; J. Kammermann, op.cit., pp. 126–59; Opsahl, T., “The Convention and the right of respect for family life”, in Robertson, A.H., ed., Privacy and human rights (Manchester, 1973) pp. 202-5Google Scholar; Pahr, W., “The meaning of the term ‘family’ in the European Convention on Human Rights”, in Robertson, A.H., ed., op.cit., pp. 186-8Google Scholar. See also Case-Law Topics 2 “Family Life” (Strasbourg, 1972).Google Scholar

28. Of the many applications submitted over the years, five have been declared admissible by the European Commission up to now. See Applications 2991/66 (Alam and Khan v. U.K.) 10 Yearbook (1967) pp. 478–506, 11 Yearbook (1968) pp. 788–95;4478/70 (Chandarana v. U.K.) 4486/70 (C.P. Patel v. U.K.) and 4501/70 (H.G. Patel v. U.K.) 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 928–1026; 5961/72 (Amekrane v. U.K.) 16 Yearbook (1973) pp. 356–89.

29. Cf., Applications 6538/74 18 Yearbook (1975) p. 203; 7289/75 and 7349/76, Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 57–94.

30. Appl. 2991/66.

31. Cf., Applications 1855/63 16 Collection of Decisions pp. 50–2; 2992/66 10 Yearbook (1967) pp. 478–506; 5269/71 14 Yearbook (1971) pp. 564–76; 5532/72 43 Collection of Decisions pp. 119–21.

32. Cf., Applications 2992/66; 5532/72; 7289/75 and 7349/76. See also Appl. 5302/71 44 Collection of Decisions p. 47.

33. Cf., Applications 312/57 2 Yearbook (1958–1959) pp. 3524; 2535/65 17 Collection of Decisions pp. 28–30; 44 78 and 4486/70 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 928–1014; 4501/70 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 1014–26; 7031/75 Decisions and Reports 6 pp. 124–6; 7129/16 Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 164–88. The only decision which possibly differs from the Commission's usual approach is that on Appl. 7048/75 Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 42–6. It would, however, be impossible to deduce a change of policy from this one decision.

34. Appl. 2991/66.

35. Applications 5301/71 43 Collection of Decisions pp. 82–4; 5445/72 and 5446/72 42 Collection of Decisions p. 146.

36. Applications 3325/67 10 Yearbook (1967) pp. 528–40; 6357/73 Decisions and Reports 1 pp. 77–8.

37. Applications 1855/63 and 5269/71 14 Yearbook (1971) pp. 564–76.

38. Applications 1855/63, 5269/71, 7289/75, and 7349/76.

39. Applications 2535/65 17 Collection of Decisions pp. 28–30 5301/71, 5445/72, 5546/72.

40. Applications 312/57; 3898/68 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 666–87, 6357/73, 7816/77 Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 219–23.

41. Cf., for example, Applications 4478/70 and 4486/70, 5269/71. See also Jacobs, op.cit., p. 132.

42. Applications 238/56 1 Yearbook (1955–57) pp. 205–7; 2535/65, 5269/71, 7175/75 Decisions and Reports 6 pp. 138–40.

43. Cf., for instance, Art. 18 of the Dutch Aliens Act 1965.

44. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1978 pp. 68-9Google Scholar. The Verwaltungsgericht declared the prohibition to visit certain parts of the city of Berlin, issued to a Turkish national, contrary to the Protocol, because there was no foundation for such measures in German legislation. The Committee of Independent Experts on the European Social Charter gives the impression of holding the opinion that the freedom of choice of residence flows from Art. 19(4) of the European Social Charter. See Conclusion IV, p. 120.

45. Meanwhile, it appears that nationals of a Contracting Party can be removed, even after a stay of forty years, according to the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of Baden-Württemberg, decision of 12 Dec. 1966, mentioned in Schüler, E. and Wirtz, P., Rechtsprechung zum Ausländerrecht (Berlin, 1971) pp. 276-9.Google Scholar

46. Cf., for the Federal Republic of Germany A. Kloesel and R. Christ Deutsches Ausländerrecht in their commentary on Sect. 10 of the Ausländergesetz.

47. Conclusions IV p. 128, 130; V pp. 138–9.

48. Conclusion IV p. 130.

49. Conclusion V pp. 97–8.

50. See p. 8.

51. The care with which the concept of lawful residence and subsequent questions has been dealt with in Arts. 11–14 of the Convention is unusual. On this point the Convention could serve as an example for all other conventions.

52. Application 7229/76 (Agee v. U.K.) Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 164–88; 7671/75 and fourteen other applications Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 185–9.

53. See pp. 10, 11–13.

54. The same applies to the exclusion or the expulsion of nationals. See, inter alia, Application 4403/70 and twenty-five other applications (S.M.L. Patel and others v. U.K.) 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 928–1014. Under exceptional circumstances extradition, too, could constitute inhuman treatment. See p. 42.

55. See, inter alia, Applications 6242/73 (Brückmann v. F.R.G.) 17 Yearbook (1974) pp. 458–79; 7729/76 (Agee v. U.K.); 7289/75 and 7349/76 Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 57–94. Application 5399/72 40 Collection of Decisions pp. 72–4, concerns the repeated and mutual exclusion of aliens by different countries. This problem was raised anew in Applications 7823/77–7824/77 (48 Kalderas gypsies v. Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands) Decisions and Reports 11 pp. 221–47. The applicants alleged that the refusal to issue aliens' passports and other identity documents constituted degrading treatment. The European Commission declared the applications non-admissible, on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In 1977, Application 7612/77 (X v. Belgium) was declared admissible, however. The case concerned an African of unknown nationality who had allegedly been threatened with expulsion several times by Belgium, while no other state was ready to admit him. For a short commentary, see 5 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (1978) p. 51.Google Scholar

56. Applications 2396/65 (X v. F.R.G.); 5961/72 (Amekrane v. U.K.) 16 Yearbook (1973) pp. 356–89. The first application concerned the expulsion of an Algerian, sentenced to death in Algeria. There is no verbatim publication of the Commission's decision; it decided later to strike the application off its list. The second application concerned the expulsion from Gibraltar to Morocco of a Moroccan pilot. The case later ended in a friendly settlement between his widow and the United Kingdom, which paid her £ 37,500.

57. Application 1802/63 6 Yearbook (1963) pp. 462–85. The application concerns a case of extradition.

58. Application 4162/69 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 806–25.

59. The question of the relationship between the conventions was referred to in Application 4162/69. The Commission did not voice an opinion on it. The case concerned a person recognised in the Federal Republic of Germany as a refugee under the Refugees Convention.

60. Decisions on some thirty applications have been published over the years; only a fraction of those submitted.

61. See, inter alia, Applications 4162/69; 4314/69 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 900–14; 4436/70 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 1028–35; 7334/76 Decisions and Reports 5 pp. 154–6.

62. Perhaps application 4763/71 37 Collection of Decisions pp. 157–8, gives an example. See also p. 20 for interference by the Commission.

63. Application 7011/75 (Henning Becker v. Denmark) Decisions and Reports 4 pp. 215–35. The application concerned repatriation of a group of Vietnamese children.

64. See, on the Resolution, Wiebringhause, H., “Le droit d'asile en Europe”, XIII A F D I (1967) pp. 566-80.Google Scholar

65. See also Docs. 1329, 3642, 3666, 3703, 3831 and 4021.

66. See pp. 54–6.

67. Conclusion I p. 86.

68. Conclusion II p. 70.

69. Conclusion IV pp. 128–9. Ireland was regarded as failing to satisfy the provision of Art. 19, paragraph 8. See also Conclusion V pp. 138–9.

70. An interesting decision with regard to appeal against the refusal to allow family members entry is that by the Dutch Crown of 22 Oct. 1974, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen 1975 Nr. 324, in which Art. 34 of the Dutch Aliens Act was considered incompatible with Art. 13 of the Convention.

71. Cf., Application 3325/67 10 Yearbook (1967) pp. 528–40.

72. Applications 7289/75 and 7349/76 Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 57–94; 7729/76 Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 164–84; 7902/77 Decisions and Reports 9 pp. 224–8. Evidently there is no question of the determination of a criminal charge, within the meaning of Art. 6, in cases of expulsion either. Cf., Applications 7289/75, 7349/76 and 7729/76.

73. Applications 2991/66 and 2992/66 (M. Alam, M. Khan and H. Singh v. U.K.) 10 Yearbook (1967) pp. 478–504, 11 Yearbook (1968) pp. 788–95. Both decisions have contributed to improvements in British legislation with regard to appeal against decisions. See also, on the right of access to a court, the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights of 21 Feb. 1975 in the Golder case.

74. That expulsion could have consequences for certain rights and obligations under civil law contracts definitely does not mean that expulsion itself concerns the determinations of civil rights and obligations. See, Appl. 7729/76.

75. See, on these aspects especially, Bülow, E., “Bemerkungen aus den Sicht des gegenwärtigen Verfahrensbeauftragten”, 8 Human Rights Journal (1975) pp. 362-5Google Scholar; Rogge, K., “Einstweilige Massnahmen im Verfahren vor der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte”, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1977 pp. 1569-70.Google Scholar

76. See, for the case-law of the European Commission on Art. 26 of the Convention in recent years, Applications 6871/75 (Caprino v. U.K.) Decisions and Reports 12 pp. 14–31; 7011/75 Decisions and Reports 4 pp. 215–35; 7216/75 Decisions and Reports 5 pp. 137–43; 7465/76 Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 153–7; 7729/76 Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 164–88.

77. According to the European Commission, the individual's right to security of person is at stake in all cases of deportation, even if no deprivation of liberty has (as yet) taken place. From this, one may deduce that any decision of a national authority concerning the expulsion of a person must, in order to safeguard this right, “conform to the procedures and substantive requirements laid down by an already existing law”. See, Appl. 7729/76 (Agee v. U.K.) Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 164–88.

78. In Appl. 1983/63 (Wallace v. The Netherlands) 9 Yearbook (1966)pp. 286–305, the Commission did not get as far as judging whether the deprivation of liberty was permitted in national law; in reality it had no legal foundation. Nevertheless, the application contributed to a legal regulation in the Dutch Aliens Act 1965. See Swart, A.H.J.De toelating en uitzetting van vreemdelingen [The admission and removal of aliens] (Deventer, 1978) pp. 315, 324Google Scholar. See also Appl. 1211/61 5 Yearbook (1962) pp. 224–9. In Appl. 6871/75 the Commission assessed the deprivation of liberty not only in the light of the national law, but also of the EEC law applicable in the complainant's case.

79. See, inter alia, Applications 984/61 6 Collection of Decisions pp. 39–40; 1465/62 9 Collection of Decisions pp. 63–6; 5961/72 (Amekrane v. U.K.) 16 Yearbook (1973) pp. 356–89.

80. Cf., Appl. 6871/75.

81. Applications 1983/63; 3916/69 32 Collection of Decisions pp. 51–5; 7376/76 Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 123–6.

82. Cf., Appl. 7317/75 Decisions and Reports 6 pp. 141–55. The Commission's decision concerns deprivation of liberty for the purpose of extradition. There seems to be no difference in cases of deportation.

83. In general, there is no literature to be found on this point. Only Koschwitz voices the same opinion; cf., Koschwitz, J., Die kurzfristige polizeiliche Freiheitsentziehung (Berlin, 1969) p. 214Google Scholar. Perhaps also Jacobs, op.cit. in n. 27, p. 59.

84. Appl. 1211/61.

85. Appl. 6871/75.

86. See, with regard to this paragraph, Applications 858/60 4 Yearbook (1961) pp. 224–41; 1983/63; 5861/72; 7376/76.

87. Appl. 7376/76.

88. Appl. 6871/75.

89. See, with regard to the deportation of aliens, Applications 4256/69 37 Collection of Decisions pp. 67–9; 4436/70 13 Yearbook (1970) pp. 1028–35.

90. See, inter alia, the Third Periodical Report of the Standing Committee on the European Convention on Establishment.

91. See the First and Third Periodical Reports of the Standing Committee for lists of the occupations concerned.

92. See the Second Periodical Report of the Standing Committee.

93. As in Recommendation 439 (1969) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly. See also, Doc. 2496.

94. Cf., van Essen, J.L.F., “La Convention Européenne d'Etablissement”, 3 N.T.I.R. (1956) pp. 145-7Google Scholar; Makarov, A.N., “Das Europäische Niederlassungsabkommen”, in Mélanges J. Andrassy (The Hague 1968) pp. 178-80, 187Google Scholar; Mamopoulos, P., “La Convention Européenne d'Etablissement”, 8 Revue Hellénique de Droit International (1955) pp. 175-7.Google Scholar

95. The fourth obligation refers to respect for the right of their nationals to leave their country to engage in a gainful occupation in the territories of other Contracting Parties. See p. 4.

96. Conclusion II p. 59.

97. Conclusion II p. 60.

98. Conclusion IV pp. 108–9.

99. Conclusion IV p. 111.

100. Conclusion III pp. 85, 86.

101. Conclusion IV p. 112.

102. Conclusion II p. 60. These Conclusions form the best illustration of the Committee's approach.

103. Conclusion III p. 84.

104. Conclusion III pp. 84, 85.

105. Conclusion II p. 60. The Committee remarks that this interpretation cannot, in any way, be regarded as prejudicing the provisions of the European Convention on Establishment, as laid down in the Appendix to the Charter.

106. Unlike the Charter, the Convention does contain a definition of the term “migrant worker”. It is to be found in Art. 1. The Convention does not deal with categories of persons such as frontier workers, artists, other entertainers and sportsmen, seamen, persons undergoing treatment, seasonal workers, and workers carrying out specific work on behalf of an undertaking having its registered office outside the territory of the state of sojourn. At present, the possibility of preparing a legal instrument (convention or resolution) on frontier workers is being studied. Even more important is the fact that the Convention only applies to nationals of other Contracting Parties, not to aliens in general.

107. See, with regard to these paragraphs, Conclusions I pp. 82–3, 213–4; II p. 65, 195; III pp. 87–91; IV pp. 113–8; V pp. 125–8.

108. See, inter alia, Conclusions III p. 92, 94; IV p. 119; V pp. 130–1.

109. Conclusion III p. 92.

110. Conclusion III p. 93.

111. Conclusion IV p. 120.

112. Conclusion I p. 86.

113. Conclusion IV p. 119. See also the Büchner Report, Doc. 3949, para. 38.

114. Conclusion IV p. 119.

115. Conclusion IV p. 98; V pp. 97–8.

116. Conclusions I p. 215; III pp. 92–3.

117. Conclusions II p. 68; III p. 92; IV p. 121.

118. Conclusion IV p. 121.

119. See, for the relationship between the right to education and a right of residence p. 16.

120. Resolution (55) 33 recommends that this provision be taken into account from the moment of signature of the Convention. Apparently, the addition of new restrictions during the period between signature and ratification is not considered to be inadmissible in itself. See, Third Periodical Report p. 14. The problem also arises with regard to Art. 14 of the Convention. See, pp. 24–5.

121. See, the Explanatory Report on the European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Strasbourg, 1969) p. 5.

122. See pp. 46–7.

123. Contrary to its earlier opinion, the European Commission held, in its report of 30 Sept. 1975 on Appl. 5493/72 (Handyside v. U.K.), that Art. 1 also applies to nationals.

124. See, with regard to this paragraph, inter alia, Appl. 4566/70 37 Collection of Decisions pp. 137–43.

125. See further, p. 8.

126. See, for comments, Duffy, P.J., “Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç: a discussion of the case and of certain questions raised by it”, 4 Human Rights Journal (1979) pp. 98–128Google Scholar; Vogler, Th., “Das Recht auf unentgeltliche Beziehung eines Dolmetschers”, 6 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (1979) pp. 640-7.Google Scholar

127. Application 6185/73, Decisions and Reports 2 pp. 68–71.

128. See, on expulsion pp. 16–17, 19–22.

129. See, inter alia, Applications 5078/71 46 Collection of Decisions pp. 35–53; 5262/71 42 Collection of Decisions p. 143; 7256/75 Decisions and Reports 8 pp. 161–6.

130. Applications 1802/63 (Kuzbari v. Federal Republic of Germany) 6 Yearbook (1963) pp. 462–85; 2143/64 7 Yearbook (1964) pp. 314–31; 3040/67 10 Yearbook (1967) pp. 518–28; 5012/71 (Kerkoub v. Belgium) 40 Collection of Decisions pp. 52–63; 5078/71 46 Collection of Decisions pp. 35–53; 6102/73 45 Collection of Decisions pp. 121–2; 624 2/73 (Brückmann v. Federal Republic of Germany) 17 Yearbook (1974) pp. 458–79; 7317/75 (Lynas v. Switzerland) Decisions and Reports 6 pp. 141–55; 8088/77 (Gallagher v. Trie Netherlands) Nederlandse Jurisprudence 1978 No. 381.

Only Appl. 6242/73 was declared admissible; the Commission decided later to strike the application off its list of cases. See, the Report of the Commission (Strasbourg, 1976).

131. See, with reference to Art. 6, Appl. 4247/69 36 Collection of Decisions pp. 73–5. In its decision on Appl. 7512/76 (Pauksch v. The Netherlands) Decisions and Reports 6 pp. 184–6, the Commission decided that no violation Art. 7 had taken place.

132. Recommendations by a group of governmental experts with regard to application of the European Convention on Extradition are to the same effect. See, Legal Aspects of Extradition (Strasbourg, 1970) p. 90Google Scholar. Burgstaller, M., Das europäische Auslieferungsübereinkommen und seine Anwendung in Österreich (Vienna, 1970) p. 18Google Scholar and Vogler, Th., Auslieferungsrecht und Grundgesetz (Berlin, 1970) pp. 210-4Google Scholar, have propounded certain criticisms.

133. Appl. 6189/73 46 Collection of Decisions p. 214.

134. See further, p. 21–22. See also Applications 1802/63; 2143/64; 3040/67; 6242/73; 6565/74 Decisions and Reports 5 pp. 53–7; 7256/75; 7317/75.

135. In two decisions the Commission has ruled that paras. 2 and 3 of Art. 6 are not applicable to extradition procedures; see, Applications 1918/63 6 Yearbook (1963) pp. 484–95, and 4247/69. On the other hand, the Commission has, on as many as foui occasions, side-stepped the question whether the first paragraph of Art. 6 is applicable to such procedures; see, Applications 1802/63, 3040/67, 4247/69 and 7317/75. The decision on Appl. 7317/75 is of particular importance: the Commission there took the view that a system in which the requested person is obliged to prove his innocence is not unreasonable in the light of the treaty provision.

136. See, inter alia, the Dutch Supreme Court, 2 March 1976, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1976 No. 415.

137. See also Troclet, L.-E., Europees Sociaal Recht [European Social Law] (Amsterdam, 1971) p. 129Google Scholar. Troclet wonders whether Art. 31 of the Charter could provide a basis for such restrictions.

138. See also, Doc. 3834.

139. Cf., Appl. 7729/76 (Agee v. United Kingdom) Decisions and Reports 7 pp. 164–88.

140. Partsch, K.J., Die Rechte und Freiheiten der europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Berlin, 1966) p. 78.Google Scholar

141. Conclusions I p. 86; III p. 97.

142. Application 808/60 8 Collection of Decisions pp. 80–90.

143. See p. 24.

144. Cf., e.g., the Resolutions of 21 Jan. 1974 and 9 Jan. 1976 (Offcial Journal 1974 C 13 and 1976 C 34) of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities.

145. Cf., the Declaration on Human Rights, adopted by the Committee of Ministers. See also, Recommendations 838 (1978) and 839 (1978), adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly.

146. See, for example, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Richardson, 403 US 365 (1971). The decision concerns discrimination on grounds of nationality in the field of social assistance.

147. See, Communication on the Activities of the Committee of Ministers of 1 May 1976 Doc. 3760.

148. There are already plans to this effect, see, the Medium-Term Plan 1976–1980 of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 1976) p. 22.

149. See pp. 11–12.

150. Cf., Opsahl, T., “The Convention and the right to respect for family life”, in Robertson, A.H., ed., Op.cit. in n. 27, at p. 205.Google Scholar

151. Detailed proposals have been made by Melander. See Melander, G., “Refugees in orbit”, A.W.R.-Bulletin 1978 pp. 59–75.Google Scholar

152. See Supra, n. 67. In March 1978, the Committee of Experts on nomads, set up by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, started its work. This Committee was instructed to prepare “an appropriate instrument relating to legal aspects of the problems raised by the legal or illegal presence in the territory of the Member States of stateless persons or persons of undetermined nationality, with special reference to the issue of identity documents and the extent of the rights of these persons to travel”.

153. Cf., for instance, Appl. 5111/71 40 Collection of Decisions p. 81.

154. See, inter alia, the Explanatory Report on the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments (Strasbourg, 1970) p. 19.Google Scholar

155. See p. 40.

156. Resolution (75) 11.

157. See p. 44.

158. Art. 3 of the Fourth Protocol forbids the expulsion of nationals. The provision would lose much of its meaning if Contracting Parties were allowed to expel a national after first depriving him of his nationality. See, the Explanatory Reports on the Second to Fifth Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Strasbourg, 1971) pp. 47-8Google Scholar. See also Jacobs, op.cit., pp. 185–6.

In its decision on application 3745/68 31 Collection of Decisions pp. 107–11, the European Commission raises the question whether it would be admissible to refuse naturalisation to an individual with the aim of expelling him.