כך רואה את הדברים גם בית הלורדים באנגליה המציין בפסק דין שניתן גם כן לאחר פסק דיננו הקודם וביחס לסעיף 8 לאמנה כי:
”The Strasbourg court has repeatedly recognized the general right of states to control the entry and residence of non-nationals, and repeatedly acknowledged that the Convention confers no right on individuals or families to choose where they prefer to live” (Huang v. Sec. of State for the Home Department, [2007] A.C. 167 (H.L.)(appeal taken from Eng.)(U.K.)).
המסקנה לפיה סעיף 8 לאמנה אינו מקים זכות לבחור באיזו מדינה ימומשו חיי המשפחה עולה אף מהספרות בנושא:
"Article 8 does not provide a right of entry or residence or a right to remain in a Convention state. The Court acknowledges that it is for states to maintain public order, 'in particular by exercising their right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens'" (PHILIP LEACH, TAKING A CASE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 303 )2d. ed. 2005)).
--- סוף עמוד 217 ---
למעשה בספרות ניתן לראות כי זוהי נקודת המוצא לקביעת היקפו של סעיף 8 לאמנה:
"The starting point for considering what this may mean is the leading case of Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 471 in which the ECtHR held that 'article 8 does not oblige states to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence' (para 67). This may result in the state saying, in effect, 'even though you are married, and we accept this means you have a right to live together, you do not have the right to exercise that right in the UK.' These principles apply not only to marriage but to all family settlement applications. They have been widely applied, and the absence of a positive obligation to respect a couple's choice of residence is now routinely cited in UK case law" (GEORGINA CLAYTON, TEXTBOOK ON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM LAW 280 (2d. ed. 2006)(.
ראו בהקשר זה גם ספר הפרקטיקה של Thomson Reuters בנושא זכויות אדם שם צוין: