Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/27238.95-en-20010118/view/
Timestamp: 2019-11-21 07:13:37
Document Index: 230201548

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 21', '§ 35', '§ 64', '§ 54', '§ 1', '§ 80', '§ 74', '§ 80', '§ 52', '§ 55', '§ 75', 'in fine', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 31', '§ 49', '§ 31', '§ 81', '§ 1', '§ 44', '§ 135', '§ 34', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 44', '§ 31', '§ 75', '§ 47', '§ 75', '§ 42', '§ 26', '§ 81', '§ 33', '§ 44']

CHAPMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM About Project
CASE OF CHAPMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
1. The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) [Note by the Registry. Protocol No. 11 came into force on 1 November 1998.], by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 30 October 1999 and by the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) on 10 December 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention).
6. On 13 December 1999 a panel of the Grand Chamber determined that the case should be decided by the Grand Chamber (Rule 100 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Sir Nicolas Bratza, the judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom, who had taken part in the Commission's examination of the case, withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Lord Justice Schiemann to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1).
7. The applicant and the Government each filed a memorial. Third-party comments were also received from the European Roma Rights Centre, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 61 § 3).
9. On 29 November 2000 Mr J. Makarczyk, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case, was replaced by Mr G. Bonello (Rule 24 § 5 (b)).
16. During this period the applicant made a further planning application for a bungalow on her land. Again her application was refused and failed after an inquiry. In August 1992 the applicant and her family returned to their land in a caravan. Enforcement notices were issued by the Council on 11 March 1993. The applicant appealed against them and there was a planning inquiry on 2 November 1993.
17. By a decision letter of 18 March 1994, the inspector dismissed the appeal. In his decision, he stated, inter alia:
25. Structure Plan policies presume against planning permission in the Green Belt, except in very strong circumstances, for the construction of new buildings, including residential caravans, or certain other specified categories of development. Para. 13 of Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Green Belts – states that, inside a Green Belt, approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for other than certain categories of appropriate developments. The previous paragraph emphasises the national presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts.
26. The latest national guidance, in Circular 1/94, on Gypsy Sites and Planning states in the introduction that a main intention of the document is to withdraw the previous guidance indicating that it may be necessary to accept the establishment of gypsy sites in protected areas, including Green Belt sites. Paragraph 13 goes on to say that gypsy sites are not regarded as being amongst those uses of land which are normally appropriate in Green Belts.
27. None of [the applicant's] projects fall within the categories identified as exempt from national or local assumptions against inappropriate development in Green Belts. ...
22. An application for planning permission must be made to the local planning authority, which has to determine the application in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 54A of the 1990 Act).
23. The 1990 Act provides for an appeal to the Secretary of State in the event of a refusal of permission (section 78). With immaterial exceptions, the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the authority so desire, give each of them the opportunity of making representations to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. It is established practice that each inspector must exercise independent judgment and must not be subject to any improper influence (see Bryan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, p. 11, § 21). There is a further appeal to the High Court on the ground that the Secretary of State's decision was not within the powers conferred by the 1990 Act, or that the relevant requirements of the 1990 Act were not complied with (section 288).
2.1. The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead.
43. Section 77 of the 1994 Act gives to a local authority power to direct an unauthorised camper to move. An unauthorised camper is defined as
48. Paragraphs 10 to 13 further require local authorities to consider their obligations under other legislation before taking any decisions under the 1994 Act. These obligations include their duties concerning pregnant women and newly-born children, the welfare and education of children and the housing of homeless persons. In a judgment of 22 September 1995 (R. v. Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson, R. v. Wealden District Council, ex parte Wales, and R. v. Wealden District Council, ex parte Stratford, unreported), the High Court held that it would be an error of law for any local authority to ignore those duties which must be considered from the earliest stages.
49. In a letter dated 25 May 1998, the Department of the Environment drew to the attention of all local planning authorities in England that Circular 1/94 required local planning authorities to assess the need for Gypsy accommodation in their areas and make suitable locational and/or criteria-based policies against which to decide planning applications. The government was concerned that this guidance had not been taken up. ACERT research (see below) had shown that 24% of local authorities (96) had no policy at all on Gypsy sites and that many in the process of reviewing their plans at the time of the survey did not feel it necessary to include policies on Gypsy provision. It was emphasised that it was important to include consideration of Gypsy needs at an early stage in drawing up structure and development plans and that detailed policies should be provided. Compliance with this guidance was essential in fulfilling the Government's objective that Gypsies should seek to provide their own accommodation, applying for planning permission like everyone else. It was necessary, therefore, that adequate Gypsy site provision be made in development plans to facilitate this process.
51. The research looked, inter alia, at 114 refused private site applications, which showed that 97% related to land within the countryside and that 96% were refused on grounds relating to the amenity value (for example, Green Belt, conservation area locations). For most of the 50 Gypsy site applicants interviewed, obtaining permission for their own land was an important factor in improving the quality of life and gaining independence and security. For many, the education of their children was another important reason for private site application. All save one had applied for permission retrospectively.
52. The report stated that the success rate in 624 planning appeals before 1992 had averaged 35% but had decreased since. Having regard, however, to the way in which data was recorded, the actual success rate was probably between 35% and 10%, being the figures given in 1992 and 1996 by the Gypsy groups and Department of the Environment respectively. Notwithstanding the objectives of planning policy that local authorities make provision for Gypsies, most local authorities did not identify any areas of land as suitable for potential development by Gypsies and reached planning decisions on the basis of land-use criteria in the particular case. It was therefore not surprising that most Gypsies made retrospective applications and that they had little success in identifying land on which local authorities would permit development. The granting of permission for private sites remained haphazard and unpredictable.
54. Local authority duties to the homeless were contained in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, which came fully into force on 20 January 1997. Where the local housing authority was satisfied that an applicant was homeless, eligible for assistance, had a priority need (for example, the applicant was a person with whom dependant children resided or was vulnerable due to old age, physical disability, etc.) and did not become homeless intentionally, the authority was required, if it did not refer the application to another housing authority, to ensure that accommodation was made available to the applicant for a minimum period of two years. Where an applicant was homeless, eligible for assistance and not homeless intentionally, but was not a priority case, the local housing authority was required to provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as it considered appropriate in the circumstances in any attempt he might make to secure accommodation.
“to ensure that discrimination as such, as well as discriminatory practices, are combated through adequate legislation and to introduce into civil law specific provisions to this end, particularly in the fields of ... housing and education;
“Under current law, Gypsies have three options for lawful camping: parking on public caravan sites – which the Government acknowledges to be insufficient; parking on occupied land with the consent of the occupier; and parking on property owned by the campers themselves. The British Government has issued guidance to local authorities aimed at encouraging the last approach. In practice, however, and notwithstanding official recognition of their special situation and needs, many Gypsies have encountered formidable obstacles to obtaining the requisite permission to park their caravans on their own property. ...” (pp. 112-13).
66. Concerning the planning regime which requires planning permission for the development of land towards the stationing of caravans, it stated:
69. The Government disputed those allegations. The Commission, by eighteen votes to nine, found that there had been no violation of this provision.
70. The Court recalls that it has already examined complaints about the planning and enforcement measures imposed on a Gypsy family who occupied their own land without planning permission in Buckley v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). Both parties have referred extensively to the findings of the Court in that case, as well as to the differing approach of the Commission.
The Court considers that, while it is not formally bound to follow any of its previous judgments, it is in the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law that it should not depart, without good reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases. Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must, however, have regard to the changing conditions in Contracting States and respond, for example, to any emerging consensus as to the standards to be achieved (see, amongst other authorities, Cossey v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 184, p. 14, § 35).
71. The applicant submitted that measures threatening her occupation of her land in caravans affected not only her home, but also her private and family life as a Gypsy with a traditional lifestyle of living in mobile homes which allow travelling. She referred to the consistent approach of the Commission in her own and similar cases (see, for example, Buckley, cited above, opinion of the Commission, p. 1309, § 64).
72. The Government accepted that the applicant's complaints concerned her right to respect for her home and stated that it was unnecessary to consider whether the applicant's right to respect for her private and family life was also in issue (see Buckley, cited above, pp. 1287-88, §§ 54-55).
78. Having regard to the facts of this case, it finds that the decisions of the planning authorities refusing to allow the applicant to remain on her land in her caravans and the measures of enforcement taken in respect of her continued occupation constituted an interference with her right to respect for her private life, family life and home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. It will therefore examine below whether this interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being “in accordance with the law”, pursuing a legitimate aim or aims and as being “necessary in a democratic society” in pursuit of that aim or aims.
80. The Government submitted that the measures in question pursued the enforcement of planning controls which were in the interests of the economic well-being of the country and the preservation of the environment and public health.
81. The applicant accepted that the measures pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the “rights of others” in the sense of environmental protection. She did not accept that any other legitimate aim was concerned.
83. The applicant submitted that, in assessing the necessity of the measures in this case, the importance of what was at stake for her weighed very heavily in the balance, as the issue concerned not only the security of her home but also her right to live, with her family, in the traditional Gypsy lifestyle. The growing international consensus about the importance of providing the rights of minorities with legal protection, as illustrated, inter alia, by the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, emphasised that this was also of significance to the community as a whole as a fundamental value of a civilised democracy. In these circumstances, any margin of appreciation accorded to the domestic decision-making bodies should be narrower rather than wider.
84. The applicant argued that the procedural safeguards in the decision-making process only gave limited recognition to those considerations in her case. The government policy Circulars 28/77 and 57/78 (see paragraphs 38-41), which expressly made allowance for the special situation of Gypsies and which were taken into account by this Court in Buckley (judgment cited above, p. 1293, § 80), had been withdrawn and replaced by Circular 1/94 which provided that Gypsies should be regarded as being in the same position as any other developer of land under the planning system. Furthermore, in reaching their decisions the planning inspectors were constrained by laws and policies applying to land development, which placed, for example, particular weight on the protection of Green Belt areas. The interest of Gypsies in residing on their land was not seen as a useful or indispensable land-use feature and therefore automatically carried much less weight in the domestic balancing exercise. Thus, the “personal circumstances” of the Gypsies could seldom outweigh the more general planning considerations.
86. The Government emphasised that, as recognised by the Court in Buckley (judgment cited above, pp. 1291-92, §§ 74-75), in the context of town and country planning, which involved the exercise of discretionary judgment in implementing policies in the interests of the community, national authorities were in a better position to evaluate local needs and conditions than an international court. It was not for the Court to substitute its view of what would be the best planning policy or the most appropriate measure in a particular case.
87. While the applicant was entitled to have her interests carefully considered by the national authorities and weighed in the balance against the needs of planning control, an examination of the applicable system, and the facts of this case, showed that the procedural safeguards contained in national law as to the way in which planning judgments were made (an assessment by a qualified independent expert, an inspector, followed by judicial review in the High Court) were such as to give due regard to her interests. The Government pointed out that local planning authorities were encouraged to adopt a sympathetic approach to any question of enforcement action under Circular 18/94 (see paragraphs 47-48 above) and that large numbers of caravans on unauthorised sites were tolerated (see the statistics cited in paragraph 53 above). However, Gypsies could not claim the right to live wherever they liked in defiance of planning control, particularly when they were now seeking to live a settled existence indefinitely on their own land.
88. The Government further submitted that, while there were no official sites in the Three Rivers district, there were sites elsewhere in Hertfordshire and that it was open to the applicant to travel to other caravan sites outside that local authority area. They pointed out that the applicant took up residence on her land, which was in an Agricultural Priority Area and an Area of Great Landscape Value within the Green Belt, without obtaining, or even applying for the prior planning permission necessary to render that occupation lawful. When she did apply for planning permission, the applicant had the opportunity of presenting the arguments in her favour at hearings before two inspectors, who gave her personal circumstances careful consideration. However, both inspectors found that her occupation of her land was detrimental to the rural character of the site situated in the Green Belt and that this outweighed her interests. The applicant could not rely on Article 8 as giving her preference as to her place of residence greater weight than the general interest. Finally, in assessing the proportionality of the measures, it should be taken into account that the applicant had made two applications for bungalows, indicating that she was willing to live in settled, conventional accommodation.
90. An interference will be considered “necessary in a democratic society” for a legitimate aim if it answers a “pressing social need” and, in particular, if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of necessity, the final evaluation as to whether the reasons cited for the interference are relevant and sufficient remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27 September 1999, §§ 80-81, unreported).
91. In this regard, a margin of appreciation must, inevitably, be left to the national authorities, who by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. This margin will vary according to the nature of the Convention right in issue, its importance for the individual and the nature of the activities restricted, as well as the nature of the aim pursued by the restrictions (see Dudgeon, cited above, p. 21, § 52, and Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 22, § 55).
92. The judgment by the national authorities in any particular case that there are legitimate planning objections to a particular use of a site is one which the Court is not well equipped to challenge. It cannot visit each site to assess the impact of a particular proposal on a particular area in terms of beauty, traffic conditions, sewerage and water facilities, educational facilities, medical facilities, employment opportunities and so on. Because planning inspectors visit the site, hear the arguments on all sides and allow the examination of witnesses, they are better placed than the Court to weigh the arguments. Hence, as the Court observed in Buckley (judgment cited above, p. 1292, § 75 in fine), “[i]n so far as the exercise of discretion involving a multitude of local factors is inherent in the choice and implementation of planning policies, the national authorities in principle enjoy a wide margin of appreciation”, although it remains open to the Court to conclude that there has been a manifest error of appreciation by the national authorities. In these circumstances, the procedural safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the respondent State has, when fixing the regulatory framework, remained within its margin of appreciation. In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see Buckley, cited above, pp. 1292-93, § 76).
95. Moreover, to accord to a Gypsy who has unlawfully stationed a caravan site at a particular place different treatment from that accorded to non-Gypsies who have established a caravan site at that place or from that accorded to any individual who has established a house in that particular place would raise substantial problems under Article 14 of the Convention.
96. Nonetheless, although the fact of belonging to a minority with a traditional lifestyle different from that of the majority does not confer an immunity from general laws intended to safeguard the assets of the community as a whole, such as the environment, it may have an incidence on the manner in which such laws are to be implemented. As intimated in Buckley, the vulnerable position of Gypsies as a minority means that some special consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory planning framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases (judgment cited above, pp. 1292-95, §§ 76, 80 and 84). To this extent, there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the Gypsy way of life (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 15, § 31; Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49; and Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, p. 56, § 31).
97. It is important to appreciate that, in principle, Gypsies are at liberty to camp on any caravan site which has planning permission; there has been no suggestion that permissions exclude Gypsies as a group. They are not treated worse than any non-Gypsy who wants to live in a caravan and finds it disagreeable to live in a house. However, it appears from the material placed before the Court, including judgments of the English courts, that the provision of an adequate number of sites which the Gypsies find acceptable and on which they can lawfully place their caravans at a price which they can afford is something which has not been achieved.
98. The Court does not, however, accept the argument that, because statistically the number of Gypsies is greater than the number of places available on authorised Gypsy sites, the decision not to allow the applicant Gypsy family to occupy land where they wished in order to install their caravan in itself, and without more, constituted a violation of Article 8. This would be tantamount to imposing on the United Kingdom, as on all the other Contracting States, an obligation by virtue of Article 8 to make available to the Gypsy community an adequate number of suitably equipped sites. The Court is not convinced, despite the undoubted evolution that has taken place in both international law, as evidenced by the framework convention, and domestic legislations in regard to protection of minorities, that Article 8 can be interpreted as implying for States such a far-reaching positive obligation of general social policy (see paragraphs 93-94 above).
101. In this connection, the legal and social context in which the impugned measure of expulsion was taken against the applicant is, however, a relevant factor.
102. Where a dwelling has been established without the planning permission which is needed under the national law, there is a conflict of interest between the right of the individual under Article 8 of the Convention to respect for his or her home and the right of others in the community to environmental protection (see paragraph 81 above). When considering whether a requirement that the individual leave his or her home is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is highly relevant whether or not the home was established unlawfully. If the home was lawfully established, this factor would self-evidently be something which would weigh against the legitimacy of requiring the individual to move. Conversely, if the establishment of the home in a particular place was unlawful, the position of the individual objecting to an order to move is less strong. The Court will be slow to grant protection to those who, in conscious defiance of the prohibitions of the law, establish a home on an environmentally protected site. For the Court to do otherwise would be to encourage illegal action to the detriment of the protection of the environmental rights of other people in the community.
103. A further relevant consideration, to be taken into account in the first place by the national authorities, is that if no alternative accommodation is available the interference is more serious than where such accommodation is available. The more suitable the alternative accommodation is, the less serious is the interference constituted by moving the applicant from his or her existing accommodation.
104. The evaluation of the suitability of alternative accommodation will involve a consideration of, on the one hand, the particular needs of the person concerned – his or her family requirements and financial resources – and, on the other hand, the rights of the local community to environmental protection. This is a task in respect of which it is appropriate to give a wide margin of appreciation to national authorities, who are evidently better placed to make the requisite assessment.
105. The seriousness of what is at stake for the applicant is demonstrated by the facts of this case. The applicant followed an itinerant lifestyle for many years, stopping on temporary or unofficial sites. She took up residence on her own land by way of finding a long-term and secure place to station her caravans. Planning permission for this was refused, however, and she was required to leave. The applicant was fined twice. She left her land, but returned as she had been moved on constantly from place to place. It would appear that the applicant does not in fact wish to pursue an itinerant lifestyle. She was resident on the site from 1986 to 1990, and between 1992 and these proceedings. Thus, the present case is not concerned as such with the traditional itinerant Gypsy lifestyle.
109. Consideration was given to the applicant's arguments, both concerning the work that she had done on the site by tidying and planting and concerning the difficulties of finding other sites in the area. However, both inspectors weighed those factors against the general interest of preserving the rural character of the countryside and found that the latter prevailed.
110. It is clear from the inspectors' reports (cited in paragraphs 14 and 17 above) that there were strong, environmental reasons for the refusal of planning permission and that the applicant's personal circumstances had been taken into account in the decision-making process. The Court also notes that appeal to the High Court was available in so far as the applicant felt that the inspectors, or the Secretary of State, had not taken into account a relevant consideration or had based the contested decision on irrelevant considerations.
111. The Court observes that during the planning procedures it was acknowledged that there were no vacant sites immediately available for the applicant to go to, either in the district or in the county as a whole. The Government have pointed out that other sites elsewhere in the county do exist and that the applicant was free to seek sites outside the county. Notwithstanding that the statistics show that there is a shortfall of local authority sites available for Gypsies in the country as a whole, it may be noted that many Gypsy families still live an itinerant life without recourse to official sites and it cannot be doubted that vacancies on official sites arise periodically.
112. Moreover, given that there are many caravan sites with planning permission, whether suitable sites were available to the applicant during the long period of grace given to her was dependent upon what was required of a site to make it suitable. In this context, the cost of a site compared with the applicant's assets, and its location compared with the applicant's desires are clearly relevant. Since how much the applicant has by way of assets, what expenses need to be met by her, what locational requirements are essential for her and why are factors exclusively within the knowledge of the applicant, it is for the applicant to adduce evidence on these matters. She has not placed before the Court any information as to her financial situation or as to the qualities a site must have before it will be locationally suitable for her. Nor does the Court have any information as to the efforts she has made to find alternative sites.
113. The Court is therefore not persuaded that there were no alternatives available to the applicant besides remaining in occupation on land without planning permission in a Green Belt area. As stated in Buckley, Article 8 does not necessarily go so far as to allow individuals' preferences as to their place of residence to override the general interest (judgment cited above, p. 1294, § 81). If the applicant's problem arises through lack of money, then she is in the same unfortunate position as many others who are not able to afford to continue to reside on sites or in houses attractive to them.
114. In the circumstances, the Court considers that proper regard was had to the applicant's predicament both under the terms of the regulatory framework, which contained adequate procedural safeguards protecting her interests under Article 8 and by the responsible planning authorities when exercising their discretion in relation to the particular circumstances of her case. The decisions were reached by those authorities after weighing in the balance the various competing interests. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal on the merits of those decisions, which were based on reasons which were relevant and sufficient, for the purposes of Article 8, to justify the interferences with the exercise of the applicant's rights.
115. The humanitarian considerations which might have supported another outcome at national level cannot be used as the basis for a finding by the Court which would be tantamount to exempting the applicant from the implementation of the national planning laws and obliging governments to ensure that every Gypsy family has available for its use accommodation appropriate to its needs. Furthermore, the effect of these decisions cannot on the facts of this case be regarded as disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
119. The Government, adopting the view of the majority of the Commission, submitted that a fair balance had been struck between the individual and general interest, in particular having regard to the fact that the applicant occupied her land in contravention of planning law and to the findings of the planning inspectors concerning the detrimental impact of her occupation.
120. For the same reasons as those given under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court finds that any interference with the applicant's peaceful enjoyment of her property was proportionate and struck a fair balance in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There has, accordingly, been no breach of that provision.
121. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that she had no access to a court to determine the merits of her claims that she should have permission to occupy her land. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 provides:
122. The applicant argued that the Court's case-law did not support any general proposition that the right of appeal to the High Court on points of law meant that planning procedures complied with Article 6. The Bryan case (judgment cited above, pp. 17-18, §§ 44-47) was, she submitted, decided on its particular facts. Specifically, she argued that the High Court could not review any questions of fact. Nor could it examine complaints that a planning inspector gave too little weight to the needs of a Gypsy family in pursuing their lifestyle on their land, as long as he did not expressly disregard this as an irrelevant factor. She also submitted that a review which failed to take account of the proportionality of a measure must be inadequate for the purpose of Article 6 (referring, mutatis mutandis, to the Court's findings on Article 13 in Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, §§ 135-38, ECHR 1999-VI).
123. The Government, agreeing with the majority of the Commission, considered that in light of the Bryan judgment (cited above) the scope of review provided by the High Court concerning planning decisions satisfied the requirements of Article 6, notwithstanding that the court would not revisit the facts of the case.
124. The Court recalls that in Bryan (judgment cited above, pp. 14-18, §§ 34-47) it held that in the specialised area of town-planning law full review of the facts may not be required by Article 6 of the Convention. It finds in this case that the scope of review of the High Court, which was available to the applicant after a public procedure before an inspector, was sufficient in this case to comply with Article 6 § 1. It enabled a decision to be challenged on the basis that it was perverse, irrational, had no basis on the evidence or had been made with reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors. This may be regarded as affording adequate judicial control of the administrative decisions in issue.
125. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this case.
128. The Government, referring to the Commission's majority opinion, found that any difference in treatment pursued legitimate aims, was proportionate to those aims and had in the circumstances reasonable and objective justification.
129. Having regard to its findings above under Article 8 of the Convention that any interference with the applicant's rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim of preservation of the environment, the Court concludes that there has been no discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. While discrimination may arise where States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV), the Court does not find, in the circumstances of this case, any lack of objective and reasonable justification for the measures taken against the applicant.
(a) joint dissenting opinion of Mr Pastor Ridruejo, Mr Bonello, Mrs Tulkens, Mrs Strážnická, Mr Lorenzen, Mr Fischbach and Mr Casadevall;
OF JUDGES PASTOR RIDRUEJO, BONELLO,
TULKENS, STRÁŽNICKÁ, LORENZEN,
FISCHBACH AND CASADEVALL
2. We agree with the majority as to the scope of the rights under Article 8 which are affected in this case (see paragraphs 73-74 of the judgment). The traditional way in which the applicant exercises her right to respect for her home, and her private and family life attracts the protection of this provision. We also agree with the majority that there has been an interference with the enjoyment by the applicant of these rights under Article 8 of the Convention. We would recall however that, although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect for private and family life and home”. The boundaries between the State's positive and negative obligations do not lend themselves to precise definition and, indeed, in particular cases such as the present, may overlap. The applicable principles are nonetheless similar. In both contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck
between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, amongst other authorities, Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, p. 56, § 31, and Marzari v. Italy (dec.), no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999, unreported). While it is therefore not inappropriate to examine the impact of the measures affecting the applicant in terms of the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention, we consider that this examination must take into account that positive obligations may arise and that the authorities may, through inaction, fail to respect the balance between the interests of the individual Gypsy and the community.
3. Our principal disagreement with the majority lies in their assessment that the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. We accept that the examination of planning objections to the particular use of a site is not a role for which this Court is well suited (see paragraph 92 of the judgment). Where town and country planning is concerned, the Court has previously noted that this involves the exercise of discretionary judgment in the implementation of policies adopted in the interest of the community (see Buckley, cited above, p. 1292, § 75, and Bryan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, p. 18, § 47). It is indeed not for us to substitute our own view of what would be the best policy in the planning sphere or the most appropriate individual measure in planning cases, which involve a multitude of local factors.
In Buckley (judgment cited above, p. 1292, § 75) it was stated that in principle national authorities, for the above reasons, enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in the choice and implementation of planning policies. However, in our view, this statement cannot apply automatically to any case which involves the planning sphere. The Convention has always to be interpreted and applied in the light of current circumstances (see Cossey v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 184, p. 17, § 42). There is an emerging consensus amongst the member States of the Council of Europe recognising the special needs of minorities and an obligation to protect their security, identity and lifestyle (see paragraphs 55-67 of the judgment, in particular the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities), not only for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the minorities themselves but also in order to preserve a cultural diversity of value to the whole community. This consensus includes a recognition that the protection of the rights of minorities, such as Gypsies, requires not only that Contracting States refrain from policies or practices which discriminate against them but also that, where necessary, they should take positive steps to improve their situation through, for example, legislation or specific programmes. We cannot therefore agree with the
majority's assertion that the consensus is not sufficiently concrete or with their conclusion that the complexity of the competing interests renders the Court's role a strictly supervisory one (see paragraphs 93-94 of the judgment). In our view, this does not reflect the clearly recognised need of Gypsies for protection of the effective enjoyment of their rights and perpetuates their vulnerability as a minority whose needs and values differ from those of the general community. The impact of planning and enforcement measures on the enjoyment by a Gypsy of the right to respect for his or her home, private and family life therefore has a dimension beyond environmental concerns. Having regard to the potential seriousness of an interference which prohibits a Gypsy from pursuing his or her lifestyle at a particular location, we consider that, where the planning authorities have not made any finding that there is available to the Gypsy any alternative, lawful site to which he or she can reasonably be expected to move, there must exist compelling reasons for the measures concerned.
4. In the present case, the seriousness of what is at stake for the applicant is readily apparent. The applicant and her family followed an itinerant lifestyle for many years, stopping on temporary or unofficial sites and being increasingly moved on by police and local authority officials. Moved by considerations of family health and the education of the children, the applicant took the step of buying land on which to station her caravans with security. However, planning permission for this was refused and they were required to leave. The applicant was fined twice and left her land. She returned, however, as they had again been moved on constantly from place to place. She and her family remain on their land subject to the threat of further enforcement measures. Her situation is insecure and vulnerable.
5. In reaching this conclusion, we have given consideration to whether, as the Government warned, this would be tantamount to excluding Gypsies from planning enforcement mechanisms and giving them carte blanche to settle wherever they choose. The long-term failure of local authorities to make effective provision for Gypsies in their planning policies is evident from the history of implementation of measures concerning Gypsy sites, both public and private (see paragraphs 36-37, 46 and 49 of the judgment). Recognition has been given domestically to the difficulties of the Gypsies' situation through the “toleration” of some unlawful sites and the sensitivity urged on local authorities in the exercise of their “Draconic” enforcement powers (see paragraphs 47-48 of the judgment). This indicates that the government is already well aware that the legislative and policy framework does not provide in practice for the needs of the Gypsy minority and that its policy of leaving it to local authorities to make provision for Gypsies has been of limited effectiveness (see paragraphs 49-52 of the judgment). The complexities of the problem have been adverted to above and it is not for us to impose any particular solution on the United Kingdom. However, it is in our opinion disproportionate to take steps to evict a Gypsy family from their home on their own land in circumstances where there has not been shown to be any other lawful, alternative site reasonably open to them (see, mutatis mutandis, Buckley, cited above, p. 1281, § 26, and p. 1294, § 81, where the problems of vandalism alleged to exist on the official site 700 metres from the applicant's land did not appear to pose any specific threat to her or her family's health or security). It would accordingly be for the authorities to adopt such measures as they consider appropriate to ensure that the planning system affords effective respect for the home, private life and family life of Gypsies such as the applicant.
6. The reference by the majority to the alleged liberty of Gypsies to camp on any caravan site with planning permission (see paragraph 97 of the judgment) ignores the reality that Gypsies are not welcome on private residential sites which are, in any event, often prohibitively expensive. Nor are they able to use such private residential sites for seasonal or temporary transit. The planning authorities themselves recognise that the only practicable options open to Gypsies are local authority-owned sites or privately owned Gypsy sites. It is not a question of Gypsies imposing particular preferences as to location and facilities without realistic reference to their own resources (see paragraph 112 of the judgment). The options open to them are, as in this case, severely limited, if they exist at all.
7. We would also take issue with the relevance or validity of the statement in paragraph 99 of the judgment to the effect that Article 8 does not recognise a right to be provided with a home. In this case, the applicant had a home, in her caravan on her land, but was being prevented from settling there. Furthermore, it is not the Court's case-law that a right to be provided with a home is totally outside the ambit of Article 8. The Court has accepted that there may be circumstances where the authorities' refusal to take steps to assist in housing problems could disclose a problem under Article 8 – see, for example, Marzari, cited above, where the Court held that a refusal of the authorities to provide housing assistance to an individual suffering from a serious illness might in certain circumstances raise an issue because of the impact of such refusal on the private life of the individual. Obligations on the State arise therefore where there is a direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter's private life (see Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 422, §§ 33-34).
8. Finally, we cannot agree with the view expressed by the majority that to accord protection under Article 8 to a Gypsy in unlawful residence in a caravan on her land would raise problems under Article 14 where planning laws continued to prevent individuals from setting up houses on their land in the same area (see paragraph 95 of the judgment). This approach ignores the fact, earlier acknowledged by the majority, that in this case the applicant's lifestyle as a Gypsy widens the scope to Article 8, which would not necessarily be the case for a person who lives in conventional housing, the supply of which is subject to fewer constraints. The situations would not be likely to be analogous. On the contrary, discrimination may arise where States, without objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see Thlimmenos v. Greece, no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
9. In conclusion, we would reiterate that it is not a necessary consequence of finding a violation in this case that Gypsies could, freely, take up residence on any land in the country. Where there were shown to be other sites available to them, the balance between the interests of protecting the environmental value of the site and the interests of the Gypsy family in residing on it would tip more strongly towards the former. United Kingdom legislation and policies in this area have long recognised the objective of providing for Gypsies' special needs. The homeless have a right under domestic legislation to be provided with accommodation (see paragraph 54 of the judgment). Our view that Article 8 of the Convention imposes a positive obligation on the authorities to ensure that Gypsies have a practical and effective opportunity to enjoy their right to respect for their home, and their private and family life, in accordance with their traditional lifestyle, is not a startling innovation.
10. We conclude that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
4. The authorities were manifestly in a state of illegality from before the time the applicant took the law in her own hands. Section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (until it was revoked by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – see paragraph 42 of the judgment), imposed a legal duty on local authorities “so far as may be necessary to provide adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area”. Indeed, the local authorities had been found in breach of their duty to make adequate provision for Gypsies in the area in 1985 and had disregarded a directive from the Secretary of State to comply with their statutory duties.
5. I believe that a public authority which is in breach of its legal obligations should not be allowed to plead that it is acting “in accordance with the law”. The classic constitutional doctrine of “clean hands” precludes those who are in prior contravention of the law from claiming the law's protection.
CHAPMAN v. the United Kingdom JUDGMENT
CHAPMAN v. the United Kingdom JUDGMENT – JOINT DISSENTING OPINION
CHAPMAN v. the United Kingdom JUDGMENT –