Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850516-1112584
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 10:03:35+00:00

Document:
DUN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche DUN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 11125/84Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-05-16;11125.84 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) EGALITE DES ARMES, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-2) PRESOMPTION D'INNOCENCEParties : Demandeurs : DUNDéfendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 11 1 25/84
Michael DUN v/the UNITED KINGDO M Michael DUN c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 16 May 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 16 mai 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention : Persons not bom in Jersey and unable to fulfil a continuous residence requirement prohibited from leasing or buying propertv on the island . Given the risk of overpopulation, interference regarded as necessarv for the econornic well-being of the country and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . Examination of whether in the present case the interference was proportionate to the aim pursued.
Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Interdiction de louer ou acheter un logement dans l'fle de Jersey, frappant les personnes non originaires de l'ile et ne justifiant pas d'une rÃ©sidence continue d'une cenaine durÃ©e . Vu le risque de surpopulation, ingÃ©rence considÃ©rÃ©e conone nÃ©cessaire au bien-Ãªtre Ã©conomique du pays et Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . Examen du point de savoir si, en l'espÃ¨ce, l'ingÃ©rence Ã©tait proportionnÃ©e au but visÃ©.
((ranÃ§ais : voir p . 207)
lhe applicant, an architect, is a United Kingdom citizen living in Jersey. He took up employment in Jersey in 1 966 . At the time, in order to take cenain interests in land, a residential qualification of 5 years' minimum continuous residence was required for outsiders under the Housing (Jersey) Law /949 .
The Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1970 provided for a ten years' continuous residence qualt~cation for individuals not bom in Jersey who wished to take a lease of property, with a proviso that once such a person had leased for a further ten years, the Housing Committee should grant permission to purchase property or enter into a lease of registered contract . Essential employees, however, were entitled to lease or purchase any properiy after ten years' continuous residence, and during those ten years, private accomodation could be provided, on a service basis, by employers . After two breaks in residence, and a period during which he acted as a freelance architectural designer, the applicant was offered full-time employmenr by a firm of architectural consultants on the island in February 1976. 71te Housing Committee told him that the firm would be entitled to provide accomodation for him, and, by implication conftrmed in 1982, that he qualified as "essential employee" . 7he ftrm declined to provide accomodation, and the applicant was in lodgings (the only form of accomodation which he was permitted to take) from 1976. On 30 September 1983 the Housing Committee refused a request by the applicant for consent to lease private accomodation as he had not been continuously on the island for the previous /0 years . No appeal lay against the refusal . In 1984, the Housing Committee informed the applicant that, provided he remained in continuous employment regarded as essential, he wotdd qualify in his own right to buy or lease property 10 years from the beginning of his qualifying employment, i .e . from February 1976 . 7he applicant alleged, inter alia, violations of Article 8 of the Convention .
The applicant complains that the restriction on the types of accommodation which he could occupy amounts to an interference with his right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention which reads : I . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . 2 . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ."
The Commission need not decide but may assume for the purposes of this decision that the housing regulations interfere with the applicant's right to respect for his private life, because the Conunission considers that any such interference is justified pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 8 . The Housing Committee's refusal to allow the applicant to lease or purchase accommodation was in accordance with the law, namely the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949, as amended . This legislation was designed to tackle the severe housing shortage of the immediate post-war period . By means of the subsequent amendments the Jersey authorities have endeavoured to prevent the over-population of the island through uncontrolled immigration, thereby protecting the island's economy and the residential and social rights of the Jersey residents . The Commission accepts that the threat of an increasing population and the prospect of the social and economic difficulties which such an increase would cause necessitated the enactment of certain protective legislation and its maintenance in force until such time as changed circumstances render it unnecessary . The Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 and the subsequent amendments to it thus pursue a legitimate aim which is necessary for the economic well-being of Jersey and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others .
Following the opinion expressed by the Court in its judgment in the Handyside case (Eur . Court H .R ., Handysidejudgment of 7 Decem ber 1976 , Series A no . 24, para . 49), the Commission must also examine the proportionality of the measures taken against the applicant to the legitimate aim pursued . In this respect the Commission notes that the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention accords the High Contracting Parties a considerable discretion in selecting the means which appear to thent to be most appropriate to achieve such legitimate aims . The Commission is of the opinion that the housing regulations which require a certain period of continuous residence on the island before the right to lease or purchase property will be granted, with less onerous conditions applying to Jersey-born people, is a system capable of operating in conformity with the Convention . Regarding the applicant's particular situation, it is apparent that, following a previous period of residence on Jersey . the applicant was fully aware of the restrictions to which he would be subject if he returned . He nevertheless chose to return in February 1976 . Since that date he has lived in lodgings, which has not prevented him from advancing his professional career on the island . He is a single man and does not have any responsibility for family or dependants . He will be entitled, as an "essential employee" . to lease or purchase a suitable property in February 1986 after he has completed a period of 10 years continuous residence on Jersey . Indeed, had the firm by whom he is entployed been willing to lease a property on his behalf he could have occupied such a property since his arrival in February 1976 . The Commission concludes that in these circumstances there is no lack of proportionality between the effect of the housing regulations on the applicant and th e
legitimate aim pursued, and that any interference which the applicant alleges with his rights under Article 8 is justified as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the economic well-being of the country and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others under Article 8 para . 2 of the Convention . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents Le requÃ©rant, architecte . est un ressortissant du Roraume-Uni habitant Jersev oÃ¹ il a commencÃ© Ã travailler en /966. A l'Ã©poque, la !oi de 1949 sur l'habitat Ã Jersey obligeait les Ã©trangers qui voulaient acquÃ©rir des intÃ©rÃ©rs fonciers Ã rÃ©sider en permanence depuis cinq ans au moins dans l'fle. Le RÃ©glernent de 1970 sur l'habitat Ã Jersey (dispositions gÃ©nÃ©rales) prÃ©voit une condition de rÃ©sidence cornirtue de dix ans pour les personnes qui rte sont pas nÃ©es Ã Jersey et qui dÃ©sirent y prendre une propriÃ©tÃ© Ã bail, assonie de la clause selon laquelle c'est seulemenr aprÃ¨s que la personne aura louÃ© pendant dir ans encore que la commission de l'habitat accordera l'autorisation d'acheter la propriÃ©tÃ© ou de signer un contrat de bail dÃ¹ment homologuÃ© . Cependant les RsalariÃ©s indispensables Â» sont autorisÃ©s Ã louer ou Ã acheter un bien aprÃ©s seulement dix ans de rÃ©sidence continue et pendant ces dix annÃ©es-lÃ , les employeurs peuvent, Ã titre de service . leur fournir un hÃ©bergement privÃ©. AprÃ¨s deuz interruptions de sa pÃ©riode de rÃ©sidence et une autre pÃ©riode pendant laquelle il travailla conane dessinateur indÃ©pendant en architecture, le requÃ©rant se vit offrir en fÃ©vrier 1976 un emploi Ã plein temps sur l'Ã®le par nne entreprise de consulrants en architecture . La commission de l'habitat l'infonna que l'entreprise Ã©tait habilitÃ©e Ã lui foumir son hÃ©bergement et confirma tacitement en /982 qu'il remplissait les conditions de Â«salnriÃ© indispensable . . L'enveprise refusa cependant de fournir le logemenr et le requÃ©rant demeura en meublÃ© (seule forme d'hÃ©bergement qui lui Ã©tait permise) Ã partir de 1976 . Le 30 seprembre 1983, la commission de lhabitat rejeta la demande que prÃ©senta le requÃ©rant pour Ãªtre aurorisÃ© Ã louer un logemenr privÃ©, car l'intÃ©ressÃ© rt'avait pas rÃ©sidÃ© en pennanence sur l'ile pendant les dix annÃ©es prÃ©cÃ©dentes . Le refus n'Ã©tait pas susceptible d'appel .
En 1984, la commission infornm le requÃ©rant qu'Ã condition de conserver un emploi continu considÃ©rÃ© comme indispensable, il remplirait les conditions voulues pour acheter ou louer une propriÃ©tÃ© dix ans aprÃ©s le dÃ©but de l'emploi en question, c'est-Ã -dire Ã panir de fÃ©vrier 1976. Ir requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue noramment des violations de l'article 8 de la Convention . (TRADUCTION)
Le requÃ©rant se plaint que la limitation imposÃ©e au type de logement qu'il peut occuper Ã©quivaut Ã une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice de son droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e . Cette ingÃ©rence est contraire Ã l'article 8 de la Convention, ainsi libellÃ© : - I . Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . 2 . II ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui . dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sÃ¹retÃ© publique, au bien-Ã©tre Ã©conomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection deda santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . La Commission n'a pas besoin de se prononcer sur la question,mÃ is elle peut supposer pour les besoins de la prÃ©sente dÃ©cision que la rÃ©glementation suc l'habitat porte atteinte aux droits du requÃ©rant au respect de sa vie privÃ©e car elle estime par ailleurs que cette ingÃ©rence se justifie au regard du deuxiÃ¨me paragraphe de l'article 8 . Tout d'abord, le refus de la commission de l'habitat d'autorisedlerequÃ©rant Ã louer ou acheter un logement Ã©tait confortne Ã la loi, Ã savoir la loi de 1949,sur l'habitat Ã Jersey, dans sa version amendÃ©e . Cette lÃ©gislation visait Ã pallier la grave pÃ©nurie de logements sÃ©vissant dans l'immÃ©diat aprÃ©s-guerre . GrÃ¢ce Ã des .amendements ultÃ©rieurs, les autoritÃ©s de Jersey ont essayÃ© d'empÃªcher la-surpopulation de l'Ã®le par une immigration non rÃ©glementÃ©e, protÃ©geant par .lÃ -mÃ©me, l'Ã©conomie de l'Ã®le et les droits sociaux et rÃ©sidentiels des habitants de Jersey .LaiCommission reconnait que la menace d'un accroissement de population et la perspective de difficultÃ©s Ã©conomiques et sociales que ne manquerait pas de susciter . pareiJ accroissement obligeaient Ã Ã©dicter une lÃ©gislation protectrice et Ã W mÃ intenir .enâ¢vigueur jusqu'au moment oÃ¹ un changement de conjoncture la rendrait inutile .'Laloi de 1949 sur l'habitat Ã Jersey et les amendements ultÃ©rieurement apportÃ©s-poursuivent dÃ¨s lors un objectif lÃ©gitime, nÃ©cessaire au bien-Ã©tre Ã©conomique'dÃ¨ Jersey et-Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrvi .
Suivant l'avis exprimÃ© par la Cour dans l'arrÃ¨t Handyside (Cour Eur . D .H ., arrÃ©t Handyside du 7 dÃ©cembre 1976, sÃ©rie A nÂ° 24, par .49), la Commission doit Ã©galement examiner si les mesures prises contre le requÃ©rant sont proportionnÃ©es au but lÃ©gitime poursuivi . La Commission relÃ¨ve Ã cet Ã©gard que le 2Ã¨me paragraphe de l'article 8 de la Convention accorde aux Hautes Parties Contractantes un pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire considÃ©rable pour choisir les moyens qui leur semblent convenir le mieux pour atteindre ces objectifs lÃ©gitimes . La Commission estime que la rÃ©glementation sur l'habitat, qui exige une pÃ©riode de rÃ©sidence continue .sur l'ile avant de bÃ©nÃ©ficier du droit de louer ou d'acheter une propriÃ©tÃ©, et qui prÃ©voit des conditions allÃ©gÃ©es pour les habitants nÃ©s Ã Jersey, est un systÃ¨me pouvant fonctionner en conformitÃ© avec la Convention . S'agissant de la situation pa rt iculiÃ©re du requÃ©rant, il appe rt qu'ayant dÃ©jÃ rÃ©sidÃ© Ã Jersey, l'intÃ©ressÃ© connaissait parfaitement les restrictions auxquelles il serait soumis s'il revenait sur l'ile . Il a nÃ©anmoins choisi d'y revenir en fÃ©vrier 1976 . Depuis cette date, il a vÃ©cu en meublÃ©, ce qui ne l'a pas empÃ©chÃ© de faire progresser sa carriÃ¨re professionnelle sur l'ile . CÃ©libataire, il n'a ni parents ni dÃ©pendants Ã¨ charge . En sa qualitÃ© de â¢ salariÃ© indispensable â¢, il aura le droit de louer ou d'acheter la propriÃ©tÃ© qui lui convient en fÃ©vrier 1986 aprÃ¨s un sÃ©jour interrompu de dix ans Ã )ersey . En rÃ©alitÃ©, si l'entreprise qui l'emploie avait voulu louer en son nom un logement, le requÃ©rant aurait pu occuper ledit logement depuis son arrivÃ©e en fÃ©vrier 1976 . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime qu'il n'y a pas absence de proportionnalitÃ© entre l'effet sur le requÃ©rant de la rÃ©glementation sur l'habitat et le but lÃ©gitime poursuivi . Elle estime que toute ingÃ©rence qu'allÃ¨gue le requÃ©rant dan sl'exrcidotqulgarni'ce8sjutfomnÃ©cesairdu esociÃ©tdmraqu,nsl'itÃ©Ãªdbe-rconmiqudpaysetlroction des droits et libenÃ©s d'autrui, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 8 par . 2 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ¨te est, sur ce point, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . , ,
.Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 16/05/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 27