AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 17176/90
by John WALKER-BOW
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 3 December 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 July 1990
by John WALKER-BOW against the United Kingdom and registered
on 19 September 1990 under file No. 17176/90;
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 1925. He is
represented by Edwin Coe, solicitors practising in London.
The applicant purchased a house in Jersey in 1968 for the sum
of £50,000. Following a period of ill-health, the applicant decided
to leave Jersey and in or about September 1986 he placed his house on
the market at an estimated market value of £1.5 million.
Pursuant to the housing legislation applicable to the sale of
property in Jersey, the applicant's property was classified as
"category K" and any proposed sale had to be approved by the Housing
Committee. Further, in or about the end of 1986, the number of
persons allowed to enter Jersey to take up residence under "Category
K" was reduced to 5 per annum.
The applicant subsequently experienced difficulty in finding a
purchaser for his property. He found a purchaser Mr. L. in or about
late 1987 but Mr. L. later reneged from the agreement. The applicant
being desperate to sell, finally accepted an offer of £1.1 million
from another purchaser Mr. K., but this sale fell through when Mr. K.
was refused permission by the Housing Committee to reside in Jersey.
Following representations by the applicant, the Housing
Committee finally agreed to grant Mr. K. permission to reside in
Jersey. The applicant then entered into further negotiations with
Mr. K. and states that he was obliged to accept the "unrealistic"
sum of £1.2 million for a property which he then considered to have
a value of £2 million. The contract of sale was signed on 21 January
1990.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of having been forced to sell his
property at a low price. He complains that the decision of the
Housing Committee refusing entry to Mr. K. was arbitrary and delayed
the sale. He complains that he did not have the possibility of
choosing the purchaser of his own property and suffered a "de facto
deprivation" which was not in the public interest. He invokes
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of having been forced to sell his
property at a low price. He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) to the Convention which provides:
"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 or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties."
The Commission recalls that the applicant's complaints arise
out of the difficulty which he experienced in selling his property on
Jersey and of the low price which he considers that he was obliged to
accept. The Commission finds that this situation did not amount to a
"de facto deprivation" of his property, but that the restrictions
imposed on sales, which had to be to persons approved for entry by the
Housing Committee, amounted to a control of use within the meaning of
the second paragraph of the above provision. The Commission on
examination of the facts as submitted by the applicant finds that the
restriction was lawful and that it pursued the legitimate aim of
controlling the population density of an island limited in area and of
ensuring the availability of housing for persons with strong
connections or associations with the island (see mutatis mutandis
Eur. Court H.R., Gillow judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A
no. 109, pp. 21-22, paras. 53-55). The Commission notes that
restrictions as to entry and the sale of property had been in force
when the applicant entered the island.
The Commission therefore considers that the effect on the
sales price of his property as a result of the limited number of
prospective buyers does not disclose any violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.
It follows that 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, unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy