Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
September 1996
Buckley v. the United Kingdom - 20348/92
Judgment 25.9.1996
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for home
Refusal of planning permission which would enable a Gypsy to live in caravans on land which she owns: no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT
A.Applicant's complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8
Additional complaint encompassed in Commission's admissibility decision — Court has jurisdiction to examine it.
B.Applicant's "formal objections"
Letter from applicant's solicitor containing "formal objections" against comment made by Government at hearing — Government did not frame their comment as a preliminary objection — argument going to the merits, to be considered at the appropriate juncture.
II.ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Whether a right protected by Article 8 is in issue
Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had acted in contravention of national law, case concerns the applicant's right to respect for her "home".
B.Whether there was an "interference by a public authority"
Not Court's task to review legislation in the abstract — applicant was refused the planning permission which would have allowed her to live in the caravans on her land, was required to remove them and prosecuted for failing to do so — "interference by a public authority" with the applicant's exercise of her right to respect for her home.
Conclusion: Article 8 applicable (unanimously).
C.Whether the interference was "in accordance with the law"
Not contested.
D.Whether the interference pursued a "legitimate aim"
No reason to doubt that measures in question pursued the legitimate aims stated by the Government.
E.Whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society"
1.General principles
Principles stated in Court's case-law reiterated.
In instant case, interests of community to be balanced against applicant's right to respect for her "home" — importance of that right for the applicant and her family to be taken into account — Court's task to determine whether reasons relied on to justify interference in question relevant and sufficient under Article 8 § 2.
2.Application of the above principles
Decision-making process: law entitled applicant to appeal to the Secretary of State on ground, inter alia, that planning permission ought to have been granted — appeal procedure comprised assessment by qualified independent expert who had seen land for herself — procedural safeguards provided for in the regulatory framework such as to afford due respect to the applicant's interests under Article 8 — subsequent judicial review also available — special needs of applicant as a Gypsy following a traditional lifestyle taken into account — although alternative accommodation available might not be as satisfactory as the dwelling which applicant established in contravention of the legal requirements, Article 8 did not necessarily go so far as to allow individuals' preferences as to their place of residence to override the general interest — after refusal of planning permission applicant was fined relatively small sums for failing to remove her caravans but was not forcibly evicted from her land — Court considers that proper regard had been had to the applicant's predicament — reasons relied on by planning authorities relevant and sufficient — means employed not disproportionate — national authorities did not exceed their margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to three).
III.ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8
Court cannot consider applicant's claims based on legislation alleged to be discriminatory — it does not appear that the applicant was at any time penalised or subjected to any detrimental treatment for attempting to follow traditional Gypsy lifestyle — applicant cannot claim to have been victim of discrimination.
Conclusion: no violation (eight votes to one).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy