Fwd: ECHR Rejects in Split Decision Appeal of Roma vs. UK
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:36:45 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: ECHR Rejects in Split Decision Appeal of Roma vs. UK
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Greek Helsinki Monitor <[email protected]>
Fwd: ECHR Rejects in Split Decision Appeal of Roma vs. UK
18.1.2001
Press release issued by the Registrar
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/Jan/Chapman-Coster-Beard-Lee-Jane%20Smithjudepress.htm
JUDGMENT IN THE CASES OF:
CHAPMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
COSTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
BEARD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
LEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and
JANE SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered judgment
(available later on at:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/default.asp?Language=en&Cmd=Query&Tname=Hejud&appno=all&RelatedMode=1)
in the following five cases: Chapman v. United Kingdom (application
number 27238/95), Beard v. United Kingdom (24882/94), Coster v. United
Kingdom (24876/94), Lee v. United Kingdom (25289/94) and Jane Smith v.
United Kingdom (25154/94).
The Court held:
By ten votes to seven, that there had been no violation of Article 8
(right to respect for private and family life) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, in all five cases;
Unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination), in all cases;
Unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions), in the cases of
Chapman, Coster, Jane Smith and Lee;
Unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 (access to
court), (Chapman and Jane Smith);
Unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol
No. 1 (right to education), (Coster, Lee and Jane Smith).
1. Principal facts
The cases concern applications brought by applicants from five British
gypsy families: Sally Chapman, born in 1954 and resident in
Hertfordshire; Thomas and Jessica Coster, born in 1962 and 1964 and
resident in Kent; John and Catherine Beard, born in 1935 and 1937 and
currently with no fixed address for their caravans; Jane Smith, born
in 1955 and resident in Surrey; and, Thomas Lee, born in 1943 and
resident in Kent.
Sally Chapman bought land in 1985 in the Three Rivers District in
Hertfordshire on which to station her caravan, without obtaining prior
planning permission. She was refused planning permission for her
caravan, and also permission to build a bungalow. Her land was in a
Green Belt area. It was acknowledged in the planning proceedings that
there was no official site for gypsies in the area and the time for
compliance with the enforcement order was for that reason extended.
She was fined for failure to comply and left her land for eight
months, returning due to an alleged lack of other alternatives and
having spent the time being moved on from one illegal encampment to
another. She still lives on her land with her husband and father, who
is over 90 years� old and suffering from senile dementia.
Thomas and Jessica Coster, husband and wife, allege that they were
forced, through lack of alternatives, to live in conventional housing
from 1983 to 1987. In 1988, having bought some land near Maidstone in
Kent, they moved on to it in caravans. Their applications for planning
permission were dismissed twice on grounds that the development was a
significant intrusion into an attractive rural area. They were
prosecuted and fined in 1989, 1990 and 1992. Following injunction
proceedings in 1992, they left their land but returned after a short
while. They were fined again in 1994 and faced injunction proceedings
in 1996 which were substituted by enforcement proceedings for removal
under s. 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, following
which they allege that they had no alternative but to accept council
housing accommodation in 1997.
John and Catherine Beard, husband and wife, stationed caravans on land
bought by them in Lancashire. They were twice refused planning
permission on grounds of impact on visual amenity and highway safety
considerations. They were prosecuted four times between 1991 and 1995
and faced injunction proceedings in 1996, which led to John Beard
receiving a suspended committal to prison for three months for failure
to remove the caravans. They left their land as a result and have
since been without a fixed address for their caravans.
Thomas Lee and his family stationed caravans on land bought by them in
a Special Landscape Area in Kent. Planning permission was refused as
the planning inspector found his site was highly visible and
detrimental to the landscape. While there are official sites in the
area, he complains that these are not fit for human habitation as they
are located on rubbish sites or on old sewage beds. Permission was
however given for use of a caravan for agricultural purposes on land
near to his and permission has been given for a large residential
development 600 yards from his land.
Jane Smith and her family bought land for their caravans in a Green
Belt area in Surrey and were refused planning permission on the
grounds that their occupation harmed a sensitive area of the
countryside. Her application for a bungalow was refused, to prevent
diminishing the rural character of the countryside. Injunction
proceedings were taken against her in 1994, following which the family
applied to be housed as "homeless". She complains that the
accommodation offered so far has either been in flats or in urban
areas or has concerned land unsuitable for habitation due to
pollution. She remains on her land under threat of removal and
committal to prison for contempt.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human
Rights on 31 May, 19 May, 14 May, 4 May and 4 May 1994 respectively.
Having declared the applications admissible, the Commission adopted
its reports on 25 October 1999 in which it expressed the following
opinions:
Chapman - no violation of Article 8 (18 votes to nine); no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (19 votes to eight), no violation of
Article 6 (25 to two); and, no violation of Article 14 (18 votes to
nine);
Coster - no violation of Article 8 (18 votes to eight); no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (19 votes to seven); no violation of
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (21 votes to 5); and, no violation of
Article 14 (18 votes to eight);
Beard - no violation of Articles 8 or 14 (18 votes to eight);
Lee - no violation of Article 8 (18 votes to eight), no violation of
Articles 1 or 2 of Protocol No. 1 (20 votes to six), no violation of
Article 10 (freedom of expression) (unanimously); and, no violation of
Article 14 (18 votes to eight);
Jane Smith - no violation of Article 8 (18 votes to eight); no
violations of Articles 1 or 2 of Protocol No. 1 (21 votes to five); no
violation of Article 6 (24 votes to two); and, no violation of Article
14 (18 votes to eight).
The Commission referred the cases to the Court on 30 October 1999.
Judgment in each case was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges,
composed as follows:
Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
Jean-Paul Costa (French),
Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish),
Giovanni Bonello (Maltese),
Pranas Kuris (Lithuanian),
Riza Turmen (Turkish),
Francoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Viera Straznicka (Slovakian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger),
Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian),
Josep Casadevall (Andorran),
Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian),
Andras Baka (Hungarian),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),
Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges,
Lord Justice Schiemann (United Kingdom) ad hoc judge.
and also Michele de Salvia, Registrar
3. Summary of the judgment
Complaints
The applicants complain that measures taken against them to enforce
planning measures concerning the occupation of their own land in their
caravans violated Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family
life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.
All the applicants, save the Beard family, argue that these measures
also interfered with their peaceful enjoyment of their land, contrary
to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Sally Chapman and Jane Smith further complain under Article 6 of the
lack of effective access to court to appeal against the planning and
enforcement decisions of the authorities and the Coster family, Jane
Smith and Thomas Lee also invoke Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, alleging
that the enforcement measures deprived their children or grandchildren
of an education.
Decision of the Court
Article 8
In all five cases, the Court considered that the applicants�
occupation of their caravans was an integral part of their ethnic
identity as gypsies and that the enforcement measures and planning
decisions in each case interfered with the applicants� rights to
respect for their private and family life.
However, the Court found that the measures were "in accordance with
the law" and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the "rights of
others" through preservation of the environment.
As regards the necessity of the measures taken in pursuit of that
legitimate aim, the Court considered that a wide margin of
appreciation had to be accorded to the domestic authorities who were
far better placed to reach decisions concerning the planning
considerations attaching to a particular site. In these cases, the
Court found that the planning inspectors had identified strong
environmental objections to the applicants� use of their land which
outweighed the applicants� individual interests.
The Court also noted that gypsies were at liberty to camp on any
caravan site with planning permission. Although there were
insufficient sites which gypsies found acceptable and affordable and
on which they could lawfully place their caravans, the Court was not
persuaded that there were no alternatives available to the applicants
besides occupying land without planning permission, in some cases on a
Green Belt or Special Landscape area.
The Court did not accept that, because statistically the number of
gypsies was greater than the number of places available in authorised
gypsy sites, decisions not to allow the applicants to occupy land
where they wished to install their caravans constituted a violation of
Article 8. Neither was the Court convinced that Article 8 could be
interpreted to impose on the United Kingdom, as on all the other
Contracting States to the European Convention on Human Rights, an
obligation to make available to the gypsy community an adequate number
of suitably equipped sites. Article 8 did not give a right to be
provided with a home, nor did any of the Court�s jurisprudence
acknowledge such a right. Whether the State provided funds to enable
everyone to have a home was a matter for political not judicial
decision.
Finding: no violation
Article 14
In all five cases, the Court had regard to its findings above under
Article 8 that any interference with the applicant�s rights was
proportionate to the legitimate aim of preservation of the
environment.
Finding: no violation
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
For the same reasons given under Article 8, in Chapman, Coster, Lee
and Jane Smith, the Court found that any interference with the
applicants� peaceful enjoyment of their property was proportionate and
struck a fair balance in compliance with the requirements of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1.
Finding: no violation
Article 6
In Chapman and Jane Smith the Court found that the scope of review of
the High Court, which was available to the applicants after a public
procedure before an inspector, was sufficient to comply with the
requirement under Article 6 � 1 of access to an independent tribunal.
It enabled a decision to be challenged on the basis that it was
perverse, irrational, had no basis on the evidence or had been made
with reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant
factors, which provided adequate judicial control of the
administrative decisions in issue.
Finding: no violation
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
In Coster, Lee and Jane Smith, the Court found that the applicants had
failed to substantiate their complaints that their children or
grandchildren were effectively denied the right to education as a
result of the planning measures complained of.
In Coster, the Court noted that their eldest children, now over 16
years of age, had left school and gone out to work and their youngest
children were attending the school near their home. In Lee, the
applicant�s grandchildren have been attending school near their home
on the applicant�s land and, in Jane Smith, the applicant had remained
on her land since 1993.
Finding: no violation
Judges Pastor Ridruejo, Bonello, Tulkens, Straznicka, Lorenzen,
Fischbach and Casadevall expressed a joint dissenting opinion in each
case, which are annexed to the judgments. Judge Bonello added a
further separate opinion.
***
The Court�s judgments are accessible on its Internet site
(http://www.echr.coe.int).
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F � 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to
deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human
Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established,
replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and
Court.
_______________________________________
Panayote Elias Dimitras
Spokesperson
Greek Helsinki Monitor
e-mail: [email protected]
Internet Addresses:
Balkan Human Rights Web Pages: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr
The Balkan Human Rights List: http://www.egroups.com/group/balkanhr
The Greek Human Rights List: http://www.egroups.com/group/greekhr
Dikaiomatika! [monthly human rights review in Greek]:
http://www.egroups.com/group/dikaiomatika
Alternative Information Network (AIM) - Athens [articles in Greek]:
http://www.egroups.com/group/aimgreek
Mail Address:
P.O. Box 60820
GR-15304 Glyka Nera, Greece
Telephone and Fax:
Tel. +30-1-347.22.59;
Fax +30-1-601.87.60
________________________________________
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================