Application No. 32876/96
by Ann Buckland and family
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 3 December 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 21 May 1996 by
Ann Buckland and family against the United Kingdom and registered on
5 September 1996 under file No. 32876/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1956 and resident in
Tanworth in Arden. She complains on her own behalf and on behalf of her
husband, her four children, her sister and her husband and their three
children, all of whom live at the same address. She is represented
before the Commission by Messrs. Tyndallwoods, solicitors practising
in Birmingham. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant and her family are Romany gypsies who have lived
a traditional nomadic life for many generations. They live in caravans
and travel together as a family.
In October 1993, the applicant and her sister purchased land
known as the Paddock in Tanworth in Arden, Warwickshire, in order to
provide a stable home for their families, education for the children
and care for their health, in particular in the case of one of the
daughters of the applicant's sister who is suffering from a terminal
illness.
The applicant and her family took up residence on their land in
April 1994. The local authority served an enforcement notice on them
on 2 August 1994 requiring the removal of the caravans for which no
planning permission had been given. The applicant's appeal was heard
before an Inspector at a Public Inquiry on 13 February 1996. The
decision of the Inspector dated 26 March 1996 rejected the appeal and
refused to grant planning permission. The inspector found that the
development intruded on a special landscape area and site of special
scientific interest, was subject to noise levels from the adjacent
motorway which exceeded the relevant guidelines and increased
unacceptably the risk of accidents on the adjoining highway. The
inspector had regard to the gypsy status of the applicant and her
family and their medical and educational needs but found that these did
not outweigh the planning objections.
It is expected that the local authority will proceed to take
action to secure the removal of the applicant and her family from their
land.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant claimed that her rights under Article 8 of the
Convention are being interfered with since she was being prevented
firstly, from living with her family in caravans on their own land and
secondly, from pursuing the traditional gypsy lifestyle and culture.
The applicant also invoked Article 14, claiming that she was
being discriminated against on the grounds of being a Romany gypsy and
Article 1 of Protocol No.1 in respect of being denied the right to live
peacefully with her family on their own land.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 21 May 1996 and registered on
5 September 1996.
The Court delivered its judgment in Buckley v. the United Kingdom
on 25 September 1996 (Eur. Court HR to be published in Reports 1996).
On 23 October 1996, the applicant's representatives wrote to the
Commission stating that they wished to withdraw the application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that the applicant's representatives wish
to withdraw the application following the Court's judgment in the
Buckley case, where it found no violation of Article 8 of the
Convention in relation to the refusal of planning permission to the
applicant, a gypsy, to reside in caravans with her children on her own
land.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant
does not intend to pursue her application before the Commission. The
Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined
in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of
the application.
It follows that the application may be struck out of the list of
cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy