Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19820507-951581
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 22:23:23+00:00
Document Index: 5733682

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 8", "l'article 26", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9515/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1982-05-07;9515.81 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9515/8 1 X . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 7 May 1982 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 7 niai 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 26 of the Convention : The person who, be it at the request of the public authorities, has withdrawn an appeal which enabled him to raise in substance . the complaints he wishes to bring before the Commission, has not exhausted domestic remedies .
Article 26 de la Convention : N'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes celui qui, fAt-ce Ã (a demande d'une autoritÃ© publique . s'est dÃ©sistÃ© d'un recours qui lui permettait de faire valoir, en substance, les griefs qu'il entend soume(tre d la Cornrnissinn .
(francais : voir p . 245 )
!n 1968 the applicant and his wife commenced construction of a house on a plot thev had purchased in the village of G. Enquiries made at the time had revealed that a major trunk road, the B . bv-pass, was proposed to be buihM passing at least one mile from the village. In 1972, when the house was nearlv completed, it came to the applicau's attention that the original plan had been modified and that the B. bypass would now pass approximately 150 ft from his home. The applicant objected to at the public enquiry but the plan was maintairted. He started judicial proceedings in order to have the decisions impletnenting the project annulled, invoking the gravity of the foreseeable rmisaices. the inaccuracy of the noise measurements announced in the course
of the public enquiry and the violation of the rights conferred by Artic(e 8 of the Convention. The Court dismissed the request, stating in particular that the Convention could not be invoked before the United Kingdom courts. The applicant appealed. The Secretary of State then criticised him for obstructing by his legal actions the fight against unemployment in the area and he bacame aware of considerable public interest against him . On the insistance of the Treasury Solicitor, he withdrew his appeal ' pro bono publico" in order to bring it before the competent Secretary of State. The latter rejected the appeal.
THE LA W The applicant complains first that his rights guaranteed by the Convention have been infringed by the proposed construction of the B . by-pass in close proximity to his home . He invokes Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention . The Commission must first consider whether the applicant has complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, since that Article provides :"The Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of 6 months from the date on which the final decision was taken, " In the present case the applicant took proceedings in the High Court to challenge the Order of the competent Minister made on . . . July 1980 implementing the necessa ry compulsory purchase orders to allow the construction of the B . by-pass on the route to which the applicant objects . The applicant's writ was issued on . . . August 1980 and his action was dismissed at first instance on . . . March 1981 . The applicant appealed to the Cou rt of Appeal on . . . Ap ri l 1981, but withdrew his appeal, pro bono publico, on . . . June 1981 . The Commission notes in pa rt icular from the transcri pt of the hea ri ng of the applicant's motion at first instance that the p re siding Judge expressly declined to accept the applicant's submission that the Sec re tary of State's decision constituted a violation of A rt icle 8 of the Convention, since the Convention is not justiciable in the United Kingdom . The applicant contends that, in the light of the High Cou rt 's rejection of this pleading and the fact that he did not wish to prevent the start of work on the new road, but merely alter its route, his proper course was to abandon his appeal before the Cou rt of Appeal and 'transfer it' to the responsible Minister. Apparently the applicant has not taken any fu rt her proceedings, such as under the Land Compensation Act 1973 .
The Commission notes however that, although the applicant was not able to plead Article 8 of the Convention as such before the High Court, he was able to submit that the road would constitute an irreparable nuisance, which was a subntission which went to the substance of his present complaint of an interference with this Convention rights . Furthermore his writ and appeal challenged the lawfulness of the Orders relating to the roadbuilding project and thereby constituted a domestic remedy both in respect of an alleged interference with Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention . It follows that by abandoning his appeal to the Court of Appeal the applicant failed to exhaust a remedy .which would, if successful, have been effective to redress his complaints under English law . Moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal . It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must be rejected under Article 27 (3) of the Convention . For these re asons the Commissio n
RÃ©sumÃ© des fai t En 1968. le requÃ©rant et sa femme entreprirent la construction d'une maison d'habi(ation sur une parcelle de (errain qu'ils avaiei t acquise dans le vi(lage de G. Des renseignements obtenus Ã l'Ã©poque il ressortait qu'il existait un projet de construction d'une route ineportante, (a rocade de B. . passant Ã un mile au moins du village . En 1972, alors que la maisort Ã©tait presque achevÃ©e, le requÃ©ran( apprit que, le pmjet avant Ã©tÃ© rnodifiÃ©, la rocade de B . passerait Ã moins de 50m de la maison .
Le requÃ©rant Ã©leva des objections lors de la mise Ã ( 'enquÃ©te publique mais le projet ful maintenu .
Il introduisit alors une pmcÃ©dure judiciaire tendant Ã faire annuler les dÃ©cisions d'exÃ©cution du projet, en p/aidant la gravitÃ© des nuisances prÃ©visibles, !'inexactitude des mesures de bruit faites au cours de l'enquÃªte publique et la violation des droits que lui garantit l'article 8 de la Convention . Le tribunal rejeta la .demande . spÃ©cifiant notamment que la Convention ne pourait @tre invoquÃ©e devant les tribunaux du Royaume-Uni . Le requÃ©rant fit appel . Il fit alors l'objet de critiques de la part d'un secrÃ©taire d'Etat, comme entravant par ses procÃ©dures la lutte contre le chÃ´mage dans la rÃ©gion et se sentit devenir la cible d'une partie de l'opinion publique. Sur les instances du Treasury solicitor, il retira son appel . dans un souci d'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral ., pour le porter devant le ministre compÃ©tent . Celui-ci lui opposa une fin de nort-recevoir
.(TRADUCION
EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant se plaint en premier lieu d'une atteinte aux droits que lui garantit la Convention en raison du projet de construction de la rocade de B . tout prÃ¨s de sa maison . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard les articles 6, 8 et 14 de la Convention . La Commission doit d'abord examiner si le requÃ©rant a satisfait aux exigences de l'article 26 de la Convention quant Ã l'Ã©puisement des recours internes . Cet article stipule que : â¢ La Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus et dans le dÃ©lai de six mois, Ã partir de la date de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive . En l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant engagea une procÃ©dure devant la High Court pour contester I'arrÃªtÃ© pris par le ministre compÃ©tent le . . . juillet 1980 . donnant effet aux ordres d'achat nÃ©cessaires Ã la construction de la rocade B . d'aprÃ¨s le tracÃ© contestÃ© par le requÃ©rant . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©posa l'acte introductif d'instance le . . . aoGt 1980 et sa demande fut rejetÃ©e en premiÃ¨re instance le . . . mars 1981 . Le requÃ©rant interjeta appel devant la cour d'appel le . . . avril 1981 mais retira son appel le . . . juin 1981 dans un souci d'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral .
La Commission relÃ¨ve notamment, dans le compte rendu d'audience concernant la demande du requÃ©rant en premiÃ©re instance, que le jugeprÃ©sident rejeta expressÃ©ment l'argument du requÃ©rant selon lequel la dÃ©cision du ministre emportait violation de l'article 8 de la Convention car la Convention ne peut pas Ãªtre invoquÃ©e devant les tribunaux du Royaume-Uni . Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'au vu du rejet par la High Court de cet argument et du fait qu'il ne voulait pas empÃªcher les travaux de la nouvelle route de contmencer mais simplement en faire modifier le tracÃ©, le meilleur parti pour lui Ã©tait de renoncer Ã son appel devant la cour d'appel et de le â¢porter . devant le ministre compÃ©tent . Apparemment, le requÃ©rant n'a pas engagÃ© la procÃ©dure que prÃ©voit la loi de 1973 sur l'indemnisation fonciÃ©re . La Commission relÃ¨ve cependant que si le requÃ©rant n'a pas pu invoquer comme tel l'article 8 de la Convention devant la High Court, il a pu faire valoir que la route causerait une nuisance irrÃ©parable, argument qui se rapprochait pour l'essentiel de son grief actuel d'ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice des droits que lui garantit la Convention . En outre, son acte introductif d'instance et son appel ont contestÃ© la lÃ©galitÃ© des arrÃªtÃ©s concemant le projet routier et constituaient donc l'exercice d'une voie de recours interne quant Ã l'allÃ©gation de violation des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention . 11 en dÃ©coule qu'en renonÃ§ant Ã poursuivre son appel devant la cou r d'appel, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© une voie de recours qui, si elle avait abouti,aurait permis de faire droit Ã ses griefs aux termes de la lÃ©gislation anglaise . Au demeurant, ni l'examen de l'affaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e, ni mÃªme l'examen d'office auquel la Commission a procÃ©dÃ©, n'ont permis de dÃ©celer de circonstance particuliÃ¨re qui aurait pu dispenser le requÃ©rant, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus en la matiÃ¨re, d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes . 11 s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait Ã la condition d'Ã©puisement des recours internes et que sa requÃªte doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
- 247 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 07/05/1982Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page