AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application Nos. 37664/97 and 37665/97
by R. C. and
by A. W. A. and 1566 Others
and Application No. 37974/97
by J. W. A. and 234 Others
and Application No. 37979/97
by R. C. A. and 3 Others
and Application No. 37982/97
by J. E. R.
and Application No. 38910/97
by K. A. and 70 Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
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 applications introduced on respectively:
26 August, 15, 16 and 17 September and 5 December 1997 by respectively:
R. C. and A. W. A. and 1566 Others, J. W. A. and 234 Others, R. C. A.
and 3 Others, J. E. R., K. A. and 70 Others and registered on
respectively 5 September 1997 under file Nos. 37664/97 and 37665/97,
1 October 1997 under file Nos. 37974/97, 37979/97, 37982/97, and
9 December 1997 under file No. 38910/97.
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 applicants are represented before the Commission by
Edwin Coe, Solicitors, London. The facts of the applications, as
submitted by the applicants' representatives, may be summarised as
follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
The applicant in Application No. 37664/97 is a member of the
Shield Shooting Centre in Dorset. He used to own 5 full bore pistols
and has enjoyed pistol shooting as a leisure activity for over
20 years. He used to shoot competitively and spent on average 4 hours
per week shooting. He also enjoys the discussion and study of
technical developments relating to handguns; the social aspects of club
membership; developing ammunition; studying the history of handguns and
mastering shooting different types of handguns. There are no specific
details provided in respect of the applicants in the other five
applications.
On 27 February 1997, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (the
"First Amendment Act") was enacted by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. The First Amendment Act was passed in response to a shooting
in Scotland where an individual entered a school and shot dead a
teacher and several children. The Government subsequently established
an inquiry which led to the amendment to the Firearms Act 1968. The
First Amendment Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to have
in their possession, or to purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell or
transfer handguns other than small-calibre handguns. The First
Amendment Act provides for a scheme of compensation for the loss of
valuable guns. The First Amendment Act came into force on 1 July 1997.
A second statute, the Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997 (together
with the First Amendment Act, "the 1997 Amendment Acts") came into
force on 1 March 1998 to extend the scope of the prohibition to include
small-calibre pistols.
The applicants complain that they are no longer able to pursue
their hobby lawfully and have received no compensation for the loss of
their leisure activity. They allege that this is a violation of their
right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1
of Protocol No. 1.
B. Relevant domestic law
The 1997 Amendment Acts amend Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968
thereby extending the prohibition on the possession of guns. Section 5
now provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
"(1) A person commits an offence if, without the authority of
the Defence Council, he has in his possession, or purchases
or acquires, or manufactures, sells or transfers -
...
(aba) any firearm which has a barrel less than
30 centimetres in length or is less than
60 centimetres in length overall, other than an
air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm
designed as signalling apparatus."
Under Section 15 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of
State is given power to arrange for handguns which fall within the
prohibition to be surrendered to the police. Under Sections 16 to 18
of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of State is to make schemes
providing for compensation to be paid:
"(i) to the owners of handguns for the value of handguns which
individuals were lawfully entitled to have in their
possession before 16 October 1996 [14 May 1997 for small-
calibre guns] or which individuals had lawfully contracted
before that date to acquire; and
(ii) for ancillary equipment, being equipment designed or
adapted for use with the prohibited firearm and which had
no practicable use in connection with any firearm which was
not prohibited."
In accordance with Section 18 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the
Secretary of State made schemes which provided for compensation
payments to be made (the "Schemes") and which came into force on 1 July
1997 (1 March 1998 for small-calibre guns). In broad terms the Schemes
provide for compensation to be payable to handgun owners on three
different bases. "Option A" allows for the payment of a flat rate of
£150 for every large calibre handgun (£100 for every small-calibre
handgun) and flat rates for ancillary items. "Option B" allows for the
payment of a value commensurate with the values set out for individual
items set out in annexes to the Schemes. "Option C" provides for a
payment at full market value in respect of handguns and ancillary items
which have been adapted in a manner which increases their value.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that they are not entitled to any
compensation under either the 1997 Amendment Acts or the Schemes in
respect of the loss of amenity suffered due to the prohibition of
handguns. (The files do not indicate whether or not the applicants
have received compensation for the guns they had in their possession.)
They allege violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13
of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The Commission notes that the applications are similar as regards
the subject matter, the complaints and the representatives, and finds
it appropriate to join them.
2. The applicants have lost the ability to pursue shooting as a
leisure activity due to the 1997 Amendment Acts prohibiting the
possession of handguns. They claim that their right to pursue their
hobby falls within the meaning of "possessions" under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and that the interference by the United Kingdom
Government with their leisure pastime constitutes a violation of this
Article.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides, so far as relevant,
as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary
to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest..."
The Commission recalls that the word "possession" has been given
a wide meaning in the context of Article 1 (Art. 1) but in substance
it guarantees the right to property (see Eur. Court HR, Marckx v.
Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 27-28,
para. 63):
"By recognising that everyone has the right to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions, Article 1 (Art. 1) is in substance
guaranteeing the right of property. This is the clear impression
left by the words "possessions" and "use of property" (in French:
"biens", "propriété", "usage des biens"); the "travaux
préparatoires", for their part, confirm this unequivocally: the
drafters continually spoke of "right of property" or "right to
property" to describe the subject-matter of the successive drafts
which were the forerunners of the present Article 1 (Art. 1)."
The right to pursue a hobby cannot be said to constitute a
"possession" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to
the Convention which does not guarantee the right to pursue a
particular leisure activity.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)
of the Convention.
3. The applicants also complain that they do not have an effective
remedy in the United Kingdom to pursue a claim for compensation and
allege a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13).
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The Commission recalls that the guarantees of Article 13
(Art. 13) apply only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable"
(cf. Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment
of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31). In the
present case, the Commission has rejected the substantive claims as
disclosing no appearance of a violation of the Convention. For similar
reasons, they cannot be regarded as "arguable".
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO JOIN APPLICATION NOS. 37664/97, 37665/97, 37974/97,
37979/97, 37982/97 AND 38910/97, and
unanimously,
DECLARES THEM INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy