ITEMID: 001-92752
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: DEU
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: CASE OF BRAUER v. GERMANY
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 14+8;Just satisfaction reserved
JUDGES: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1948 in Oberschwöditz, in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), and lives in Lennestadt.
6. The applicant is the natural daughter of a Mr Schildgen, who recognised her several months after her birth. She lived in the territory of the former GDR until 1989, while her father lived in the FRG. The father and daughter corresponded regularly during this period, and after the reunification of Germany she visited him. He died between 30 June and 3 July 1998 (the precise date has not been specified).
The applicant subsequently made several attempts to assert her inheritance rights in the domestic courts.
7. On 10 July 1998 the applicant applied for a certificate of inheritance attesting that she was entitled to at least a 50% share of Mr Schildgen’s estate.
8. In a decision of 8 October 1998 the Neunkirchen District Court (Amtsgericht – Nachlassgericht) refused the applicant’s application, holding that, notwithstanding the reform of the law of succession following the introduction of the Inheritance Rights Equalisation Act of 16 December 1997 (Erbgleichstellungsgesetz), the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act (Gesetz über die rechtliche Stellung nichtehelicher Kinder – Nichtehelichengesetz) of 19 August 1969 remained in force. The provision in question stated that children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 were not deemed to be statutory heirs (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraph 18 below). The District Court also referred to a decision given by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 8 December 1976 (see also “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraph 21 below), in which the provision had been found to be in conformity with the Basic Law (Grundgsetz).
9. On 4 November 1998 the applicant appealed to the Saarbrücken Regional Court (Landgericht), arguing in particular that the law of the former GDR, which provided for equal treatment between children born within and outside marriage, should apply in her case. In any event, section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act contravened Article 3 (principle of equality before the law) of the Basic Law as there was no objective justification for the difference in treatment.
10. In a decision of 7 January 1999 the Saarbrücken Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the same grounds. It acknowledged, however, that the exclusion of children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 from the statutory right of inheritance placed them at a very clear disadvantage in relation to those born after that date and also to those covered by the law of the former GDR.
11. In a decision of 3 September 1999 the Saarland Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to it to establish whether the applicant was indeed Mr Schildgen’s natural daughter and whether there were any other heirs. If the applicant were to be entitled to at least a 50% share of the estate, the Regional Court should examine whether the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act was in conformity with the Basic Law.
The Court of Appeal confirmed at the outset that by virtue of the rules of private international law and, in particular, the settled case-law concerning section 25(1) of the Introductory Act to the FRG Civil Code (Einführungsgesetz in das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch), FRG law alone was applicable in the applicant’s case, since the deceased (Erblasser) had not been resident in the territory of the former GDR on 3 October 1990, when German reunification had taken effect.
However, it considered that the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act was not in conformity with the Basic Law, for the following reasons. Firstly, the legal and social status of children born outside marriage had evolved considerably since the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 December 1976 and had in practice become equivalent to that of children born within marriage. The Federal Constitutional Court, moreover, had itself adopted a more restrictive approach to Article 6 § 5 of the Basic Law (principle of equal treatment between children born outside and within marriage) in its decision of 18 November 1986 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraph 23 below). Furthermore, a new situation had arisen as a result of the accession of the former GDR to the FRG, since by virtue of section 235(1)(2) of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code, taken together with section 25(1), children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 had the same rights as children born within marriage if the father had been resident in the territory of the former GDR on 3 October 1990 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraphs 19-20 below). However, there were no objective grounds for a difference of treatment between children born outside marriage before or after 1 July 1949, or between children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 according to whether or not the father had been resident in the territory of the former GDR on 3 October 1990. The Court of Appeal concluded that the arguments put forward by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision of 8 December 1976 were no longer valid, particularly with regard to the practical and procedural difficulties of establishing the paternity of children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949, and the need to protect the “legitimate expectations” of the deceased (Vertrauensschutz des Erblassers) and his family.
12. In a decision of 25 January 2001 the Saarbrücken Regional Court confirmed its previous decision on the basis of the same arguments. Even if it was established to a 99% degree of certainty that the applicant was indeed Mr Schildgen’s daughter and there were no other known heirs, she was excluded from any statutory entitlement to the estate by the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act. In the Regional Court’s view, that provision did not contravene the Basic Law despite German reunification, as the Federal Constitutional Court had held in its decision of 3 July 1996 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below, paragraph 22).
13. In a decision of 7 August 2001 the Saarland Court of Appeal again quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to it to establish whether there were any other heirs of the second or third order and to re-examine whether the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act was compatible with the Basic Law where the State was the sole statutory heir.
The Court of Appeal held that it was not acceptable to set a cut-off date if the deceased had no other heirs and, as a result, the State became the sole statutory heir. It referred in that connection to the right of inheritance (Erbrechtsgarantie) guaranteed in Article 14 § 1 of the Basic Law, which in its view also protected the rights of a child born outside marriage where there were no private statutory heirs other than the State.
14. In a decision of 10 July 2003 the Saarbrücken Regional Court confirmed its previous decisions on the basis of the same arguments. It added that it was not required in the case before it to examine whether the provision in issue was in conformity with the Basic Law, since it had been established that the deceased had heirs of the third order and that the State was therefore not the statutory heir.
15. In a decision of 29 September 2003 the Saarland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, on the ground that it was bound by the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court in which the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act had been found to be in conformity with the Basic Law. It further refused to refer the case back to the Regional Court for a fresh examination, seeing that the State was not the statutory heir in the case before it.
16. In a decision of 20 November 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, declined to consider the appeal.
It observed, in particular, that the aspect of protecting the “legitimate expectation” of the deceased had gained in importance since, following its decision of 8 December 1976, it had considered the inheritance rights of children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 to have been clarified in relation to the Basic Law. It added that the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act had not lost its objective justification simply because children born outside marriage in an entirely different social context had the same rights as children born within marriage. The difference in treatment in comparison with children born outside marriage who were covered by the law of the former GDR was justified by the inherent purpose of section 235(1)(2), that of avoiding any disadvantage resulting from the former GDR’s accession to the FRG.
17. The Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act of 19 August 1969, which came into force on 1 July 1970, provided that on the father’s death, children born outside marriage after 1 July 1949 – shortly after the entry into force of the Basic Law – were entitled to compensation from the heirs in an amount equivalent to their share of the estate (Erbersatzanspruch). The sole exception concerned children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949: the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Act excluded them from any statutory entitlement to the estate and from the right to financial compensation.
18. In 1997, in the general context of the reform of family law with regard to custody and parental rights, the legislature also made changes to the law of succession for children born outside marriage through the Inheritance Rights Equalisation Act of 16 December 1997, which came into force on 1 April 1998. Children born outside marriage are in principle now treated as equal to those born within marriage as regards all aspects of the law of succession.
However, the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act of 19 August 1969 remains in force as a transitional provision.
19. By section 235(1)(2), taken together with section 25(1), of the Introductory Act to the FRG Civil Code, children born outside marriage in the territory of the former GDR before 3 October 1990 (the date on which German reunification took effect) have the same inheritance rights as children born within marriage in accordance with the FRG Civil Code if the father died after 3 October 1990 and had been resident in the territory of the former GDR on that date. Section 235(1)(2) seeks to protect the rights of children born outside marriage prior to reunification who would have been covered by the law of the former GDR, which afforded equal inheritance rights to children born outside and within marriage.
20. It follows that the inheritance rights of children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 are dependent on the deceased’s place of residence on 3 October 1990: if the deceased was resident in the territory of the former GDR, the child born outside marriage has the same inheritance rights as a child born within marriage; if, however, the deceased was resident in the territory of the FRG, the child born outside marriage has no statutory entitlement to the estate.
21. In a leading decision of 8 December 1976 the Federal Constitutional Court held that the provision in issue was compatible with the Basic Law.
It stated, in particular, that fixing 1 July 1949 as the cut-off date was objectively justified in view of the practical and procedural difficulties of establishing the paternity of children born outside marriage before that date, since the scientific methods used at the time were less developed than present-day methods. Many paternity suits were therefore unlikely to succeed owing to insufficient evidence. Moreover, the new legislation made it possible to contest declarations of paternity drawn up before 1 July 1949. Accordingly, having regard to those factors, the legislature had not overstepped its margin of discretion in this regard. Furthermore, it had to a certain extent been able to take account of existing uncertainties regarding the law of succession and of the opinion of those opposed to reforming the legal status of children born outside marriage. Lastly, the “legitimate expectation” of the deceased and their families that the exception provided for in the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act would be maintained also deserved a certain degree of protection.
22. In a decision of 3 July 1996 the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed its earlier position notwithstanding the reunification of Germany. It held that the legislature had taken into account the social conditions prevailing when the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act had been enacted. This objective justification was still present even though children born outside marriage in an entirely different social context had the same rights as children born within marriage.
23. In a decision of 19 November 1986 the Federal Constitutional Court held that section 1934c of the Civil Code, which provided that a child born outside marriage was entitled to a share in the estate only if at the time of the father’s death his paternity of the child had been acknowledged or determined by a court ruling, or judicial proceedings to that effect were pending, was not in conformity with Article 6 § 5 of the Basic Law.
24. During the passage of the Children’s Rights Improvement Act (Kinderrechteverbesserungsgesetz) of 9 April 2002, the legislature again upheld the exception in the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act. It took the view that that provision was compatible with the Basic Law in the light of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions of 8 December 1976 and 3 July 1996 (see paragraphs 21-22 above), which had created an even stronger “legitimate expectation” (Vertrauenstatbestand) for the deceased and his family.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 14
8


ITEMID: 001-86654
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: POL
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: WALKUSKA v. POLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The applicant owns a house situated on plot no. 191/2 in Piątnica, a suburb of Łomża, where there is dense development of family houses built on individual plots. Before 1994 the applicant’s neighbour, who owned a plot directly adjacent to the applicant’s house, had a small pigsty on her plot.
Beginning in 1994 the neighbour started to develop substantially the running of a pig farm on her property. To that end, she applied for permission to renovate an old building located a few metres from the applicant’s house.
On 21 May 2001 the Mayor of Piątnica (Wójt Piątnicy) granted the applicant’s neighbour initial approval for a development project to be carried out on her land (decyzja o warunkach zabudowy). The project provided for the overhaul and renovation of the building situated on the plot for the purposes of animal husbandry for up to 14 husbandry stalls. The Mayor fixed the conditions to be met by the project: inter alia the renovated building was not to exceed the borders of the owner’s land, it was to comply with the technical requirements set out in the applicable provisions of the relevant construction laws, in particular these applicable to buildings designated for animal husbandry purposes. The Mayor observed that the operation of the farm of the size concerned did not make the farm fall with the ambit of those projects which, under the Minister of Agriculture, could cause environmental harm and nuisance to the neighbouring properties and had therefore comply with specially stringent requirements.
The applicant and eight other neighbours appealed, submitting that the operation of the pigsty would cause serious nuisance to the adjacent properties. The second-instance authority upheld the challenged decision, essentially reiterating the arguments relied on by the first-instance authority. Ultimately, on 18 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s and other neighbours’ appeal against the Governor’s decision, finding that the initial construction permit was in compliance with the provisions of the local land development plan.
The applicant’s neighbour obtained on 14 August 2001 a final construction permit (zezwolenie na budowę) from the Mayor. The permit covered the renovation of a building of 88 square metres and 360 cube metres, on the basis of a finding that the project submitted by the owner and providing for the operation of an animal husbandry farm was compatible with the local land development plan and satisfied the applicable technical requirements. In particular, the project included such details which were specially designated to limit any nuisance which the operation of the farm could cause to the neighbours (installation of ventilating channels, new windows, concrete floor and foundations). The size of the building was not to be altered. Hence, the objections of the neighbours could not be allowed.
The applicant and eight other neighbours filed an appeal against this decision, again arguing that the operation of the farm would be to the detriment of the quality of the environment and would deteriorate the conditions of their everyday life.
On 22 December 2001 the Podlasie Governor dismissed their appeal. He observed that, following the applicant’s appeal, an additional inquiry had been instituted, including on-site inspection. Following this, certain amendments had been brought to the project in order to accommodate certain objections raised by the neighbours. It was reiterated that the project submitted by the owner and providing for the operation of the animal husbandry farm was compatible with the local land development plan and satisfied the applicable technical requirements. If implemented, the project would substantially ameliorate the technical condition of the building, in particular in making the animal husbandry cause less nuisance to the neighbouring properties. It was further stated that it had been prepared by persons having requisite professional qualifications. It was further stressed that, following the appeals brought by the neighbours, the examination of the case had been particularly meticulous and that their objections had been duly taken into consideration. It has not been shown that the planned reconstruction would deteriorate the conditions in which the owners of the neighbouring properties would exercise their ownership. Consequently, there were no grounds on which to refuse the permit under the relevant provisions of the Construction Law.
The applicant and other neighbours appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, submitting that the project, if implemented, would breach their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
On 15 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s and other neighbours’ appeal against the Governor’s decision. The court found that the decision under appeal was lawful in terms of substantive law and that the proceedings in which it had been given respected the applicable norms of administrative procedure. In particular, the administrative bodies had taken into account the technical requirements set out in the relevant ordinance. Moreover, the project was compatible with the local land development plan. On the whole, the reconstruction did not overstep the limits of the owner’s discretion in the exercise of her ownership.
Under the provisions of land planning legislation as applicable at the relevant time, land development plans were adopted by organs of local government. A decision to prepare a new plan was taken by a local council. Subsequently, the local mayor prepared, with the assistance of the local administration, a draft land development plan. The public was informed of the decision to prepare a new plan and a draft plan was to be made available to the local public for a period not shorter than 21 days. All members of the public were entitled to submit objections and comments on the draft plan.
A final plan was adopted by way of a resolution of a local council. The council, when voting on the draft plan, also decided whether and, if so, in what manner, objections and comments submitted by the local public were to be considered.


ITEMID: 001-117860
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FRA
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: EL MORSLI v. FRANCE
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Josep Casadevall
TEXT: The applicant, Ms Fatima El Morsli, is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1980 in Tagzirt (Morocco) and resides in Marrakesh.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, can be summarised as follows.
The applicant is of the Muslim faith and wears the veil. Since 2001, she has been married to a French national who lives in France.
She submitted that on 12 March 2002 she had gone to the Consulate-General of France in Marrakesh to request an entry visa to France so that she could join her husband, and that she was had not been authorised to enter the consulate premises because she had refused to remove her veil for the purposes of an identity check. The applicant had then submitted a visa application by registered letter, and her application had been refused.
The applicant’s husband then lodged an appeal, on behalf of his wife, with the Appeals Board against the refusal to grant her an entry visa to France.
On 25 June 2003 the Board dismissed his appeal as follows:
“In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of Decree 2000-1093 of 10 November 2000 relating to the Appeals Board for appeals against decisions refusing entry visas to France, I regret to inform you that the Board has dismissed the appeal you lodged on 1 July 2002 requesting re-examination of the decision by which the Consul-General of France in Marrakesh refused an entry visa to France to [the applicant].
It is up to [the applicant] to comply with the regulations in force in order to request a visa entry to France in accordance with the formal requirements.”
The applicant’s husband then lodged a further appeal, still on behalf of his wife, with the Conseil d’Etat, invoking in particular the right of his wife to respect for her family life and the right to freedom of religion.
On 7 December 2005 the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the appeal, giving the following reasons:
“...
The wearing of the veil or headscarf, by which women of the Muslim faith can express their religious convictions, may be restricted, particularly in the interests of public order.
The documents in the file show that [the applicant] went to the French Consulate in Marrakesh on 12 March 2002 in order to request a visa and that as she refused to agree to the identity check, which has been set in place at the entrance to the Consulate for reasons of security and public order and required the temporary removal of her veil, she was not allowed access to the Consulate; that she then submitted a visa application by registered letter; that this written application, which did not, however, enable the person requesting the visa to be identified, cannot be regarded as a visa application in accordance with the formal requirements for issuing visas, which require the personal appearance of the applicant; that in citing this reason for refusing the visa application, the Board, which was not obliged to examine the application as regards right of entry since it was not submitted in accordance with the formal requirements, which can legally impose a temporary restriction on the wearing of the veil as the only means of identifying the applicant, did not err in law or infringe Article 9 of the Convention ... .
Since the [applicant] refused to agree to this temporary restriction to allow her identity to be checked, she must be considered as having, on her own initiative, decided not to submit a visa application in accordance with the formal requirements; that consequently, she is not entitled to rely on the terms of Article 8 of the Convention... .”


ITEMID: 001-61795
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: GBR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2004
DOCNAME: CASE OF CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 8;No separate issue under Art. 14+8;No separate issue under P1-1;No separate issue under Art. 6;No violation of Art. 6;No violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Christos Rozakis;Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: 8. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in or about Lancashire.
9. The applicant and his family are gypsies. They led a traditional travelling lifestyle until they suffered so much from being moved on with ever increasing frequency and harassment that they settled on the gypsy site run by the local authority at Cottingley Springs. They lived there permanently for about thirteen years, until February 1997 when they moved off. They stated that they moved off the site at that time due to the anti-social behaviour of others living on the site and others who came onto the site, e.g. vehicles being driven round the site at night, violence and disturbances such that they could not sleep at night or the children play safely during the day. They moved into a rented house but were unable to adapt to these conditions. They gave up their tenancy when offered two plots for the family at Cottingley Springs.
10. The applicant returned to the site with his family in October 1998.
11. By a licence agreement dated 22 October 1998, Leeds City Council (“the Council”) granted the applicant and his wife a contractual licence to occupy plot no. 35 at Cottingley Springs caravan site in Leeds. The licence in Clause 12 required the applicant as occupier to comply with the Site Regulations, while Clause 18 stated:
“No nuisance is to be caused by the occupier, his guests, nor any member of his family to any other person, including employees of the Council, the occupiers of any other plots on the Site, or occupiers of any land or buildings in the vicinity of the Site.”
12. On 29 March 1999, the applicant’s adult daughter Margaret Connors was granted a licence to occupy the adjacent plot, Plot 36, where she lived with Michael Maloney who later became her husband. She also cared for the applicant’s mother-in-law, Margaret Kelby, until she went into a residential nursing home in the area. The applicant’s adult sons, James Junior and Joseph, did not reside with the applicant but were frequent visitors both to his plot and their sister next door.
13. During 1999, the applicant and his family were in dispute with the Council due to its alleged failure to undertake repairs on Plot 36 (there was no electricity supply or other facilities for some time), their objection to paying electricity charges which they considered to be overcharging and concerning the Council’s refusal to accept payment by instalment for the site deposit. Their complaints were referred to the Local Authority Ombudsman to investigate.
14. The Government stated that the applicant’s children (including his adult sons James Junior and Joseph) and Michael Maloney misbehaved and caused considerable nuisance at the site. The Council’s Travellers Services Manager, based at the site, was aware of many incidents of nuisance caused by the applicant’s children and visitors. The Manager visited the applicant and Margaret Connors on a number of occasions to report the misbehaviour and nuisance. On 16 December 1998, the Council gave the applicant written warning that further incidents of anti-social behaviour by his children could jeopardise his occupation of the plot. Nevertheless, both the applicant’s children and his visitor Michael Maloney continued to cause nuisance at the caravan site.
15. In January 2000, when it became known that Margaret Connors was going to marry Michael Maloney, the applicant alleged that the Council manager of the site stated, “The minute you marry Michael Maloney you’ll be out that gate”. Michael Maloney was a member of a family against whom proceedings had previously been brought for eviction from the site on allegations that they were “a magnet for trouble”. In February 1997, the Maloney family had moved from the site. They remained in the Leeds area until the summer of 1999 when they went to Nottingham.
16. On 31 January 2000, notice to quit was served on the family requiring them to vacate both plots. No written or detailed reasons were given by the Council, though the issue of “magnet for troublemakers” had been raised.
17. On 12 February 2000, Margaret Connors married Michael Maloney and they continued to live on Plot 36.
18. On 20 March 2000, the Council issued two sets of proceedings for summary possession pursuant to Order 24 of the County Court Rules, one concerning the applicant and his wife and family on Plot 35 and the other against Margaret Connors and “persons unknown” on Plot 36. On 24 March 2000, the applicant was served with various documents. The grounds for possession stated that the defendants were in occupation without licence or consent. In the witness statement dated 17 March 2000, the site manager referred to Clause 18 of the licence agreement and asserted that the defendants had breached the licence agreement and that he had given them notice to quit. No particulars of breach were given. He also asserted that the necessary investigation into the needs of the defendants had been made in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Department of the Environment Circular 18/94.
19. The applicant disputed that they were in breach of Clause 18, that any possible alternative approaches had been taken to any problems and also that any appropriate enquiries had been made into their welfare.
20. At this stage, the applicant’s family consisted of his children Charles aged 14, Michael aged 13, Daniel aged 10 and Thomas aged 4 months. Thomas had been suffering from serious illness, with kidney problems and rashes of unknown origin, while the applicant’s wife, who was asthmatic, had suffered several attacks requiring visits to hospital. The applicant himself had been having chest pains and was awaiting a hospital appointment. Daniel had settled well into full-time education at the nearby primary school, and the others were receiving assistance, including teaching at home.
21. The Council served further witness statements containing particulars of the allegations of nuisance. These were disputed by the applicant. They related largely to Margaret and Michael Maloney on Plot 36.
22. On 14 April 2000, the summary possession proceedings were adjourned pending the determination of the applicant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review of the Council’s decision to determine the licence of his plot which had been lodged on 10 April 2000. During the hearing, Margaret and Michael Maloney indicated an intention to leave the site. As the bulk of the complaints were against them, the applicant stated that the Council were requested to review its decision to terminate the licence of the applicant and his family.
23. On 12 May 2000, the High Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. The judge noted that the applicant’s counsel accepted that the necessary investigations had been carried out by the Council and rejected as unarguable the contention, as regarded procedural fairness, that the applicant had not been given prior warning of the threat of eviction.
24. On 16 May 2000, the applicant applied to the Director General of Fair Trading for a ruling that the terms of the licence agreement were unfair, in particular that Clause 18 was unfair in holding him responsible for the actions of visitors whom he could not reasonably be expected to control.
25. The Council took the decision to proceed with the eviction. It dropped the allegations of breach of licence and asserted a right to summary possession on the basis that the family were trespassers as permission to occupy the land had been withdrawn. On 19 June 2000, the County Court granted a possession order. The Council undertook not to execute a warrant for possession until 14 July 2000 on condition that the applicant and his family were of good behaviour and kept the peace.
26. Further representations were made by the applicant to the Council without success.
27. On 13 July 2000, as the applicant had not given up possession, the Council obtained a warrant for possession of the plot. The Government stated that the applicant and his family barricaded themselves in the plot and refused to leave when the County Court bailiffs attended to execute the warrant. The Council applied to the High Court for enforcement of the order for possession. On 24 July 2000, the High Court ordered the Sheriff to execute the warrant for possession. The Sheriff’s officer, the bailiffs and the West Yorkshire police carried out a planning and risk assessment. The Sheriff’s officer attended the site and requested the applicant to vacate the plot. He refused.
28. On 1 August 2000, early in the morning, the Council commenced enforcement of the eviction, in an operation involving Council officers, the Sheriff’s officers and numerous police officers. The applicant stated that also police helicopter, police dogs, control centre, numerous police vehicles and detention vans were employed. The operation lasted five hours.
29. The Government stated that the police arrested the applicant and his son Daniel for obstruction under section 10 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The applicant stated that he was attempting to carry out items of property to a trailer when he was stopped by bailiffs and arrested. He was handcuffed and held in a police van for an hour and subsequently at the police station, though he was complaining of chest pains. At about midday, he was taken to hospital for emergency admission.
30. According to the applicant, his thirteen-year-old son Michael was also seized and held in a van by the police for five hours during the eviction. The applicant’s wife was left to cope alone, the baby Thomas being ill.
31. The family’s two caravans were removed (they owned one and the other was rented). The applicant stated that it was not until late afternoon that their own caravan was returned to them. However many of their possessions were still held by the Council, including medicine needed for Thomas. During 3 August 2000, the Council returned their possessions, including a washing machine, drier, microwave, gas bottles, kettle and clothing. This was dumped on the roadside some distance away from the applicant’s caravan. The Government stated that on 1 August 2000 the Council removed from the plot to safe storage goods and personal property that the applicant and his family had failed to take with them. At the request of the applicant, the Council returned these goods and personal property to the family who had meanwhile taken up occupation on land nearby at Cottingley Drive owned by the Council, where the presence of gypsies was sometimes tolerated for short periods. As they claimed it was not possible to get into the field to deliver the goods directly, the Council unloaded the goods at the edge of the field, informed the applicant and kept watch until they were collected.
32. A group of gypsies was at that time on the land at Cottingley Drive for the purpose of attending a wedding. This group did not however leave by 1 August as previously agreed, staying on to attend the funeral of a baby who had died on 31 July 2000. The Council prepared eviction proceedings and included the applicants as “persons unknown”. The applicant alleges that no assistance or advice was given to them as to where they could go, save for an offer of accommodation at Bridlington (on the east coast) which failed to take into account the local community ties of the family who had lived on Cottingley Springs site for most of 13 years and in the Leeds area for some 20 to 30 years.
33. An application for adjournment of the possession proceedings was rejected by the County Court on 14 August 2000. The applicant and his family moved from the land and travelled around the Leeds area stopping for a few days at a time.
34. The Government stated that the applicant and his family had returned to the caravan site three times since as trespassers. The Council applied for an injunction to ban the applicant and his family from entering the site. The outcome of these proceedings is not known.
35. The applicant stated that following the eviction he and his family were required to move on repeatedly. Partly at least due to the stress and uncertainty, the applicant’s wife chose to move into a house with the younger children and they were separated in May 2001. Daniel lived for a while with the applicant. Following the eviction, he did not return to school. The applicant stated that he continued to travel in his caravan, with his son Michael and occasionally Daniel, but that they were unable generally to remain in any place for more that two weeks. He continued to have chest pains for which he received medication and tests. As he had no permanent address, he used his wife’s address for postal purposes, including medical appointments.
36. Prior to 1994, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 provided in section 6 that it should be the duty of local authorities “to exercise their powers ... so far as may be necessary to provide adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area”. The Secretary of State could direct local authorities to provide caravan sites where it appeared to him to be necessary (section 9). In addition, approximately 100 million pounds sterling (GBP) was spent under a scheme by which one hundred per cent grants were made available to local authorities to cover the costs of creating gypsy sites.
37. Section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”), which came into force on 3 November 1994, repealed sections 6-12 of the 1968 Act and the grant scheme referred to above. The change in policy underlying the repeal was explained by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State:
“In the past 13 years the number of gypsy caravans stationed on unauthorised sites has remained broadly the same... The shortfall in provision has been largely due to natural growth in the gypsy population. Plainly site provision is barely keeping pace with the growth in demand and is not reducing the shortfall...
We recognise that council site provision has contributed to alleviating the difficulties experienced by the gypsy community. Indeed the predicament of gypsies in England and Wales is now far different from in 1968. At that time, probably fewer than 10 per cent of gypsy caravans in England and Wales were stationed on authorised sites, whereas the figure is now about 46 per cent. A further 24 per cent are on authorised private sites, and many more are stationed on tolerated sites where they are allowed to stay with reasonable security from eviction. ...
We believe that public provision of sites has now reached an acceptable level. Public accommodation has been provided for 46 per cent of the total number of gypsy caravans in England and Wales. We do not believe that it is in the public interest to continue to maintain what has become an open-ended commitment to provide sites for all gypsies seeking accommodation at the public’s expense. It is our view that the right approach now is to encourage more gypsies to establish their own sites through the planning system. We know that many gypsy families would prefer to establish their own sites rather than reside on council sites. The National Gypsy Council has for a long time supported the case for private provision. Private site provision has increased by more than 135 per cent since 1981. Our intention is to encourage that trend.”
38. Local authorities remain empowered to provide gypsy sites under section 24 of the 1960 Act and such sites remain the largest single component of the overall supply. Under current policy guidance, the Government have emphasised the importance that local authorities maintain their existing sites and consider if it is appropriate to provide further sites (Circular 18/94, paragraphs 21-22). In 2000, the Government announced that they were making available 17 million pounds sterling over the period 2001-2004 to help local authorities to maintain their sites.
39. 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
“... a person for the time being residing in a vehicle on any land forming part of the highway, any other unoccupied land or any occupied land without the owner’s consent”.
40. Failure to comply with such a direction as soon as practicable, or re-entry upon the land within three months, is a criminal offence. Local authorities are able to apply to a magistrates’ court for an order authorising them to remove caravans parked in contravention of such a direction (section 78 of the 1994 Act).
41. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State dated 23 November 1994 (Circular 18/94) concerned the unauthorised camping by gypsies and the power to give a direction to leave the land (CJPOA above). Paragraphs 6-9 required local authorities to adopt “a policy of toleration towards unauthorised gypsy encampments”:
“6. ... Where gypsies are camped unlawfully on council land and are not causing a level of nuisance which cannot be effectively controlled, an immediate forced eviction might result in unauthorised camping on a site elsewhere in the area which could give rise to greater nuisance. Accordingly, authorities should consider tolerating gypsies’ presence on the land for short periods and could examine the ways of minimising the level of nuisance on such tolerated sites, for example by providing basic services for gypsies e.g. toilets, a skip for refuse and a supply of drinking water. ...
8. Where gypsies are unlawfully camped on Government-owned land, it is for the local authority, with the agreement of the land-owning Department, to take any necessary steps to ensure that the encampment does not constitute a hazard to public health. It will continue to be the policy of the Secretaries of State that Government Departments should act in conformity with the advice that gypsies should not be moved unnecessarily from unauthorised encampments when they are causing no nuisance.
9. The Secretaries of State continue to consider that local authorities should not use their powers to evict gypsies needlessly. They should use their powers in a humane and compassionate fashion and primarily to reduce nuisance and to afford a higher level of protection to private owners of land.”
42. Paragraphs 10-13 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.
43. Occupiers of gypsy caravan sites run by a local authority receive limited security of tenure pursuant to Part 1 of the 1968 Act. An occupier’s contractual right can be determined by four-week’s notice and he may only be evicted by court order. Local authorities are in addition required to have regard to the guidance on best practice in managing gypsy sites, e.g. such as set out Circular 18/94 concerning statutory duties to support children, to house the homeless and make appropriate educational provision for school-age children. A local authority failing to have regard to that guidance might be subject to challenge by way of judicial review.
44. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) confers further protection upon a person who lives in a caravan or mobile home as his only or main residence. Such a person may not be evicted save by court order and on the site owner having established one of the stated grounds, inter alia, that the court is satisfied that the occupier is in breach of the licence agreement and has failed to remedy that breach within a reasonable time and that it is reasonable for the agreement to be terminated. This protection was conferred on occupiers of caravans on privately owned residential sites and also the occupiers of local authority sites. However, section 5(1) excluded land run by the local authority as a caravan site for gypsies. The effect of this exclusion was analysed by the House of Lords in Greenwich London Borough Council v. Powell (1989) 21 HLR 218:
“... the intention of the legislature in the Act of 1983 was clearly to exclude from the definition of ‘protected site’ sites such as that at Thistlebrook provided by local authorities in discharge of their duty under section 6 of the Act of 1968 to accommodate those whom they bona fide believe to be gypsies because they are nomadic for part of the year, notwithstanding that they may establish a permanent residence on the site by returning from year to year; such a site will not become a ‘protected site’ even if some of the erstwhile nomads, as well they may, give up their nomadic way of life entirely. It would be different if the local authority adopted a policy of offering vacancies on the site to static residents with fixed full time employment...”
45. Secure tenants of conventional flats or houses provided or managed by local authorities under the Housing Act 1985 enjoy a similar regime of security of tenure to that conferred upon occupiers of a residential caravan site by the 1983 Act.
46. A number of cases have been brought in the domestic courts challenging the lack of security of tenure on local authority gypsy sites.
47. In this case, a gypsy, whose licence to occupy a local authority site had been revoked for alleged misbehaviour, claimed in the proceedings brought for possession of the plot, that the eviction would be in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and sought a declaration of incompatibility.
48. In rejecting the gypsy’s claims and ordering possession, the High Court judge, Mr Justice Stanley Burnton, found that the eviction of the applicant would interfere with his rights under Article 8 § 1 but that the statutory framework, as a matter of general principle and policy, satisfied the requirements of Article 8 § 2. He noted two general points:
“33. ... First, statutory regulation of housing and the consequences of such regulation are matters of some complexity. For example, while security of tenure may be to the advantage of existing tenants or licensees, it may be to the disadvantage of tenants and licensees generally. In the 1960’s, security of tenure for residential tenants and control of rents were reimposed under the Rent Acts. Doubtless those measures were in the short term interests of residential tenants. However, in the long term they led to a reduction in the supply of privately-rented accommodation, which, on one view, was disadvantageous to residential tenants and potential tenants generally. There is no simple equation between security of tenure and the public interest.
34. The second general consideration is related to the first. Housing is very much ‘the area of policy where the court should defer to the decision of Parliament’... The need for, and the consequences of, legislation in this area are matters for Parliament, not the court...
‘... We do not lose sight of the fact that courts are not primary decision-makers in areas such as housing policy. Strasbourg confers a wide margin of appreciation in such matters... our own courts will give a margin of discretion to elected decision-makers, all the more so if primary legislation is under scrutiny’. Sheffield City Council v. Smart [2002] EWCA Civ. 04 per Laws LJ
35. The policy behind the exempting provisions was clearly stated by Lord Bridge in his speech in the House of Lords in Powell at 1012 ...:
‘Any other construction of ‘protected site’ in section 5(1) of the Act of 1983 would, it seems to me, cause great difficulties both for local authorities and for most of the gypsy community and would undo much of the good work which has been done in this difficult field. Those already established on sites like Thistlebrook would, of course, enjoy full 1983 security of tenure. But local authorities in the position of the council would need to start de novo to discharge their duty under section 6 of the Act of 1968. Many existing designations under section 12 would have to be revoked or would perhaps be automatically invalidated... For the future, local authorities establishing new sites providing accommodation for gypsies would have to be vigilant to prevent their residence acquiring any degree of permanency. This, I think, they could in practice only do by applying a short rule-of-thumb limit of stay, which would be quite contrary to the interests of the gypsy community.’
36. [Counsel for the defendant gypsy] submitted that this statement was no longer applicable as a result of the abolition of the duty of the local authority to provide sites for gypsies. I do not accept this submission. The statement of Lord Bridge is equally applicable to the sites which local authorities continue to provide, although they are under no duty to do so. Furthermore, as has been seen, central government guidance is that it is important for those sites to be maintained.”
49. The judge quoted at length the evidence of the Secretary of State’s department on the aims of the two statutory frameworks, one applying to all local authority gypsy caravan sites and the other to all other residential caravan sites run by local authorities and private owners:
“ ‘25. With Part I of the 1968 Act, and with the 1975 and 1983 Acts, Parliament sought to address specific problems of commercial exploitation experienced by occupiers of private sites. There has never been any evidence to suggest that such problems extend to local authority Gypsy sites, and accordingly those legislative provisions that are directed at those problems have not been extended to such sites. The problems faced by Gypsies were wholly different, relating primarily to the acute shortage of sites available to meet their particular accommodation needs. The said problems were addressed by Part II of the 1968 Act, and supplemented by the departmental guidance circulars issued to local authorities. By 1994, the scheme of part II of the 1968 Act was found to have served its purpose as far as it could reasonably be expected to do. There was now a substantial and valuable supply of Gypsy caravan sites provided and operated by local authorities. The emphasis of Government policy has now changed to one of encouraging Gypsies themselves to add to that existing supply. Nevertheless existing local authority supply remains an essential component of the Government’s strategy of securing an adequate level of accommodation for Gypsies. The policy of the 1994 Act is to maintain and safeguard that distinct source of supply.
26. Thus, I draw particular attention to the fact that the statutory protection afforded by Part 1 of the 1968 Act and the 1975 and 1983 Acts has been and still is available to Gypsies if they choose to reside at sites other than those provided by local authorities specifically for Gypsies. In general, the key difference between such sites has been the greater flexibility, which is usually available on local authority Gypsy sites, in order to accommodate the nomadic lifestyle of occupiers. This may allow Gypsies to remain on a site on a short-term basis, or to retain a site for 12 months of the year, while paying a reduced rent as a retainer during the few months of the year while they may be travelling in search of seasonal work. Other local authority sites and private sites, in general, are aimed at longer-term residential occupiers, without the need for such flexibility because they are not pursuing a nomadic lifestyle.
27. Nevertheless, there are of course a number of Gypsies who occupy sites on a long-term basis, and other mobile home residents who do not consider themselves to be Gypsies, but who prefer to occupy private sites on a more short-term basis. The aim of the separate statutory frameworks is to ensure diversity of provision to meet the varying needs of different individuals and families; it is not to classify or categorise individuals or families. Accordingly, Gypsies seeking to settle on a more permanent site may occupy private or local authority (non-Gypsy) sites and benefit from the scheme put in place by Part I of the 1968 Act and the 1983 Act. This diversity of public and private site provision reflects that which is available in housing generally.
28. The separate statutory framework allows for flexibility in meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsies. It appears that the Defendant is effectively arguing in these proceedings in favour of a single statutory framework applicable to all caravan sites, including local authority Gypsy sites. In my view, such a single statutory framework would be detrimental to the interests of Gypsies throughout the country. If the security of tenure provisions of that framework applied equally to local authority Gypsy sites, it would undermine the flexibility that such sites provide in catering for the varied lifestyles of Gypsies. Some may move from site to site on a regular basis, while others may be more permanently based on a site, possibly travelling for a few months each year to take on seasonal work. If each Gypsy were able to rely on security of tenure then every site, whatever its designation, could potentially become a permanent site with no scope to accommodate short-term occupiers. Furthermore, if there were no longer a distinction in the statutory framework allowing flexibility for the provision of Gypsy sites, then there would be nothing to prevent any person residing in a mobile home seeking to occupy a Gypsy site, whether or not they pursue a nomadic lifestyle. Inevitably, fewer sites, if any, could be made available specifically for Gypsies pursing a nomadic lifestyle.
...
32. Experience suggests that local authorities would face difficulties in managing sites if eviction were subject to broad discretionary powers of the courts to suspend or attach conditions to orders. There is a balance to be struck between the latter and the merits of flexibility (already mentioned) that such sites offer in catering for the varying accommodation needs of Gypsies. To this (and in favour of the existing position) must be added the fact that in reaching decisions about evictions local authorities, as responsible bodies, need to take into account the range of obligations and considerations outlined in paragraph 29 above. These amount to significant safeguards against unscrupulous or unjustified evictions. Furthermore local authority decisions in relation to eviction are open to challenge by way of judicial review.’ ”
50. The judge concluded:
“38. While I am not over-impressed by the vagueness of the statement in paragraph 32 that ‘experience suggests’, applying the guidance given by Laws LJ in Smart, this evidence satisfies me that the exempting provisions are ‘necessary in a democratic society’, and a proportionate response to a social need, and do not amount to an infringement of Article 8. It is true that occupiers of exempted sites do not have the benefit of the safeguards applicable to introductory tenants. In practice, however, they are able to bring judicial review proceedings where the circumstances justify them, and I do not think that the absence of those safeguards substantially prejudices persons such as the Defendant. Moreover, any such safeguards would detract from the flexibility that Parliament has decided is appropriate for exempted sites. ...
39. I can deal with Article 14 quite shortly. The exemption in section 4(6) of the CSA is justified by the special position of local authorities and the policy considerations referred to above. The exemption is section 5 of the MHA depends on the status of the site owner as a local authority, and not on any personal quality of the licensee or tenant. It therefore raises no question of discrimination contrary to Article 14.
Conclusion
...
41. This conclusion is consistent with that of the Commission in P v. UK (App. No. 14751/89) which rejected as inadmissible the complaint by gypsies that their eviction from an exempted site infringed their rights under Articles 8 and 14. Mr Watkinson submitted that this decision was no longer applicable by reason of the abolition of the duty of local authorities to provide sites for gypsies. As I stated above, I do not regard this as a valid distinction between the present position and that before 1994. There are still sites provided by local authorities for gypsies, and indeed if there were none there would be no scope for section 5 of MHA.”
51. In this case, a Romany gypsy, threatened with eviction from a council site, sought a declaration that the provisions of the 1968 Act were in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention insofar as it failed to provide the protection given to secured tenants of local authority conventional housing. In rejecting the application, Mr Justice Burton noted that the parties had agreed that there had, in the past, been objective justification for the lack of security of tenure of gypsy occupiers of council sites and that the claimant’s case was that, in light of changes, that was no longer the case. He summarised the Secretary of State’s case for justification for the absence of security of tenure as follows:
“i. Nomadism. The whole raison d’être for gypsy culture and identity, and indeed its defining factor, given the absence of necessary ethnicity - not all gypsies are Romanies, not least the so-called New Travellers - is nomadism. Hence the definition in section 16 of the 1968 Act...
ii. Site availability. There must be a substantial availability of sites for gypsies. Stanley Burnton J referred to the problem of ‘balance’ in general terms in Isaacs in paragraph 33: [cited above].
The submission is thus that there is no good clogging up all the caravan sites with those who do not move, and effectively removing them from the stock of available sites, by giving security of tenure.
iii. Flexibility. This is reflected in the decision in Isaacs. There is a stock of secure pitches on private sites, where there is security of tenure by virtue of the MHA. It is in respect of private sites that protection from commercial exploitation is necessary, and in any event the safeguard of administrative law remedies is not available. Thus the necessary ‘mix’ of private and council, secure or insecure, pitches, is maintained.
Mr Gahagan [Director of Housing at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions] most clearly sets out the effect of these justifications in combination at paragraph 15 of his reply witness statement:
‘There are limited resources for providing publicly funded accommodation, whether it be for gypsies or members of the ‘settled’ community. The Government is trying to make sure that there is provision for gypsies who have a nomadic way of life. There are other alternative forms of occupation for those with a settled way of life, which are as equally available to gypsies as they are to any other person. However if accommodation which was intended for those with a nomadic way of life could become converted into accommodation for those with a settled way of life just by the life choices made by the occupants, then this would make planning for nomadic persons by local and central Government very difficult.’
Dr Kenrick [Chairman of the Romany Institute, expert witness instructed by the claimant], while not challenging the historic justification, submits that it no longer applies:
‘44. Mr Gahagan states that the legislation regarding gypsy accommodation is tailored so as to facilitate a nomadic way of life... The fact is that the nomadic way of life is ending for most gypsies, and therefore the existing legislation is unsatisfactory...
66. In conclusion, the situation today is very different from what was envisaged at the time of the 1968 ... Act and the [MHA]. The examples I have given of the low turnover and lack of vacancies show that council sites are becoming permanent residences for most of the families. They often have mobile homes and utility buildings. In this changed situation there seems no reason why residents should not have the same right as the tenants of council housing or non-Gypsy mobile home sites.’ ”
52. The judge summarised the statements of both Mr Gahagan and Dr Kenrick concerning the differing patterns of life chosen by gypsies: Mr Gahagan emphasised the flexibility necessary to cope with those who move on a regular basis or were permanently based on one site but possibly travelling several months a year while Dr Kenrick stated that position had substantially moved on from the time of the 1968 Act when it was anticipated that 20% of families travelled, that local authorities even encouraged families to become permanent residents by allowing them to leave for periods and pay half rent and that for the small minority that travelled all year round there were the existing small number of transit sites. The judge then summarised the conclusions of the October 2002 report (see below) which was found to be the most significant feature in the evidence before him.
53. The judge concluded:
“32. It is plain from the passages of the October 2002 Report that I have cited that it is now accepted that there is a substantial majority that no longer travels for any material period, albeit that there is a substantial minority that does travel. No figures have been produced, and, as Dr Kenrick himself has pointed out, no statistics as to turnover yet exist, but the varied passages from the Report which I have cited in paragraph 30(vi) show that it is accepted that some thinking must now be done. Nevertheless when asked by me whether the Secretary of State wanted an adjournment to consider the position further, Mr Mould clearly stated that no such adjournment was sought, and that his case remains that, rethink though there plainly is going to be, the Secretary of State still accepts the onus of showing that the present legislation can still be justified. This is not a case, as adumbrated in Seymour-Smith and Hooper, where the Government now accepts that the position can no longer be justified but asserts an entitlement to a period to correct discriminatory effects before a declaration is made... but rather a situation where the Government is still in the process of monitoring the position and, until it reaches a conclusion, asserts that the present position can be justified.
33. If this were simply a matter of concluding that there is now a substantial majority of gypsies who are no longer nomadic, whose position can be immediately safeguarded by some new legislation of the kind discussed in general terms in paragraph 31 above, I would not feel inhibited either by the well-established principles of allowing deference and/or a margin of appreciation to Government or Parliament... nor in particular by the principle enunciated by the Court in Mellacher ... whereby the ‘possible existence of alternative solutions does not in itself render the contested legislation unjustified’. However I am satisfied that the position is not so straightforward. There is, in my judgment, quite apart from any simple question of giving security of tenure to those in council caravan sites, a necessary, indeed, crucial, concomitant question to be considered and resolved, before it can be concluded that the present position is unjustified. I conclude that there is a very difficult question of how to define gypsies, to whom security of tenure in such sites is to be given (if it is). If security of tenure is to be given to all long-term caravan occupiers on council sites, as they are on private sites, then how, if at all, is there to be any differentiation between gypsy/traveller occupiers and any other occupiers who wish to place a mobile home on a local authority site, with security of tenure? And if there is to be no such differentiation, then the last state of gypsies whose cultural heritage or spiritual and cultural state of mind is nomadism or travelling may be worse than the first. At present that actual or potential nomadism (‘a substantial nomadic habit of life’) is the justification both for the lack of security of tenure and also for the special arrangements for local authority sites catering especially for them, i.e. within section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Dr Kenrick himself refers obliquely to the problem, in paragraph 53 of his witness statement: “The residents of council sites do not have to retain their Gypsy status (by travelling for an economic purpose...) in order to retain their pitches.” ...
35. I am satisfied that ... the absence of security of tenure for all gypsy/travellers on all local authority sites, is still appropriate and justified. I have no doubt that the Government will give further thought to the position, as indicated in the October 2002 Report, will obtain the necessary further statistics and will, pursuant to its own declared intention to give protection to gypsies and their way of life, continue monitoring the present position. Meanwhile, the safeguard of judicial review remains, and, although there is some discussion in the Report (pp. 246-7) about the present lack of security of tenure, eviction of residential gypsy occupiers on local authority caravan sites is not flagged up as a present problem...”
54. In this case, which dealt with local authority housing for the homeless that fell outside security of tenure provisions, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ claims that their summary eviction breached Articles 6 or 8 of the Convention:
“If this court were to hold that a tenant in the circumstances of either of these appellants is by force of Article 8(2) entitled to have the county court judge (or the judicial review court it matters not) decide on the particular facts whether her eviction is disproportionate to the council’s aim (in essence) of managing its housing stock properly, we would in effect thereby convert the non-secure tenancies enjoyed by homeless persons into a form of secure tenancy. We should be imposing a condition, not unlike the requirement of reasonableness presently applicable in relation to secure tenancies under the 1985 Act, which takes the judgment whether possession of the premises should be obtained from the landlord council and gives it to the court...[the appellants’ argument] ... amounts in truth to a ‘macro’ assault on the mechanics of the statutory scheme for protection of homeless persons...”
55. This report, issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, summarises the information and conclusions of research on the extent and quality of local authority gypsy sites carried out by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham.
56. In the Executive Summary, it is noted that:
“– There is no clear, widely understood national policy towards accommodation for Gypsies and other Travellers in England; there is a general feeling that such a policy is needed involving local authorities and others but with a strong lead from central government.
– There are around 320 local authority sites providing about 5,000 pitches. It is important that the existing network is retained and currently closed sites brought back into use. ...
– We estimate that between 1,000 and 2,000 additional residential pitches will be needed over the next five years. Between 2,000 and 2,500 additional pitches on transit sites or stopping places will also be needed to accommodate nomadism. The latter need to form a national network.
– There are obvious barriers to site provision, especially through resistance from the settled community. Many believe a statutory duty and central subsidy are needed to ‘encourage’ local authorities to make provision. Treating site provision in the same way as housing for planning purposes could help.
– Site management is more intensive than is usual for social housing management and requires higher staff/resident ratios. It should be ‘firm but fair’. There are areas where greater formality might be introduced, including performance monitoring...”
57. Concerning the legal definition of a gypsy (page 7):
“The legal definition of a ‘Gypsy’ is ‘persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin’, excluding members of an organised group of travelling showmen or those engaged in travelling circuses. This was clarified in the case of R v. South Hams ex parte Gibbs as ‘persons who wander or travel for the purpose of making or seeking their livelihood not persons who move from place to place without any connection between their movement and their means of livelihood)’. Thus the legal definition is explicitly concerned with habitual lifestyle rather than ethnicity, and may include both ‘born’ Gypsies or Travellers and ‘elective’ Travellers such as the so-called New (Age) Travellers, once a sufficient nomadic habit of life has been established.
Alongside the legal definition, there is an ethnic definition of a Gypsy or Traveller... Romany Gypsies were accepted as an ethnic group for race relations legislation in 1989. Irish Travellers ... were accepted as an ethnic group for race relations legislation in August 2000.”
58. Concerning travelling (page 8):
“Not all ethnic Gypsies and other Travellers travel regularly. A range of travelling patterns exists. Frequency of travel ranges from full-time Travellers with no fixed base, to families who live in one place most of the year, but still travel with living vehicles for holidays or family events. Some travel long distances across regions even countries, while some regular travellers never leave a single town. Travelling is part of the cultural heritage of traditional Gypsies and Travellers, and is still culturally important, even for those who no longer actively travel...
There are some indications that fewer Gypsy/Travellers now travel full-time, and some have ‘settled’ for a combination of reasons related to personal circumstances, greater difficulties in travelling and finding safe places to stop, and a desire for a more comfortable lifestyle and education for children. However it would be unwise to assume that any trend towards greater ‘settlement’ is universal, or unidirectional. Individuals can pass from one pattern of travelling to another in line with family cycle, health and personal circumstances.”
59. Concerning overall Gypsy/Traveller Accommodation Issues (page 11):
“In most local authorities Gypsy/Traveller accommodation policies are not well-developed, if they exist at all. ... In part this reflects the lack of a specific duty to consider Gypsy/Traveller needs, and in part a tendency to equate Gypsy/Traveller accommodation with site provision - so an authority without a site has no policy.
Where policies exist, they are not always comprehensive and integrated...History and individual personalities seem to have an influence on the approach taken locally. Most policies have been developed without input from Gypsies and other Travellers...”
60. Concerning site dynamics and turnover (pages 28-29):
“Most residential Gypsy/Traveller sites appear to have a very low turnover, and are stable. Most residents have lived on site for three years or more on 86% of sites. ...While there are exceptions, the general picture built up of residential Gypsy/Traveller sites is that they are stable, with long-term residents who travel little during the course of a year. It may be that, for many residents, the attractions of the site lie in the possibilities of living in a trailer (attractive for cultural reasons and leaving the option of travel open) and of living within a culturally distinct community among friends and family. This is not necessarily the same as meeting the needs of a nomadic or semi-nomadic population. For many residential site residents, nomadism appears to be a spiritual and cultural state of mind, rather than a day-to-day reality.”
(Page 31):
“Pitch vacancies on residential sites arise infrequently. Eight out of ten residential sites have a waiting list for places ...”
61. Concerning licence agreements, rules and enforcement (page 31):
“Enforcement of licence conditions is an important element in overall site management. The ultimate sanction – very rarely evoked in the case studies - is eviction, but most action occurs well before this stage. ...”
62. Concerning accommodation for nomadism (page 41):
“An unknown proportion of Gypsies and other Travellers still actively travel whether throughout the year, seasonally or on special or family occasions. Those who travel throughout the year may have no fixed base at all... There is little formal provision to accommodate Travellers and their trailers while on the road. There are just 300 transit pitches provided on local authority sites. Recent Gypsy counts have shown roughly ten times as many caravans on unauthorised encampments. Even taking into account the unknown number of private transit pitches, it is clear that ‘nomadism’ is currently mostly accommodated informally and often – from the viewpoint of both the settled community and Travellers – unsatisfactorily.
... The need for a range of transit accommodation has been recognised for at least forty years, yet supply is still small and, as this research has shown, actually shrinking...”
63. Concerning conclusions and recommendations:
“One of the clearest conclusions from the research is the lack of any clear, widely understood national policy towards accommodation for Gypsies and other Travellers in England, and a general feeling that such a policy is needed....” (page 50)
“Another very clear conclusion from the research is that Gypsies and other Travellers are often socially excluded and still suffer discrimination in many areas of life. There is a need for a clear central lead to affirm the legitimacy of a nomadic way of life and to challenge racism and discrimination against Gypsies and other Travellers. There is also a need to make Gypsies and other Travellers less ‘invisible’ in policies aimed to help socially and economically disadvantaged groups. ...” (page 51)
“Another approach worth considering it to bring site provision more closely within mainstream housing. Given the stability discovered on many residential sites, it seems entirely appropriate to see them as a form of specially adapted housing for Gypsies and other Travellers... Housing associations could become involved in site provision and management and the Housing Corporation could provide social housing grant as for other general and special needs housing. Issues around site licensing and model standards, and tenure (whether or not the Mobile Homes Act 1983 might apply) would need to be clarified.” (page 52)
“Residents of residential Gypsy /Traveller sites are licensees with only basic protection against harassment and illegal eviction. Many Gypsy/Travellers and their supporters argue strongly that this is not appropriate and puts Gypsies and other Travellers at a serious disadvantage relative to social housing tenants and especially secure council tenants. Given the changes in tenancies currently being considered, it might be worth thinking further about the status of site residents...” (page 54)
64. This report, issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, provided further information and conclusions of research on the provision and management of local authority gypsy sites carried out by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham.
65. In the section “Licence Agreements, Rules and Enforcement” (pp. 118-123), it is stated inter alia:
“Gypsy/Traveller site pitches are let on a licence rather than a tenancy. This is in itself contentious with some Gypsies and other Travellers and their supporters. As licensees, site residents enjoy less security and fewer rights than council tenants. ...
The less security is argued to be justified on the grounds that local authority sites need greater flexibility in order to accommodate the nomadic lifestyle of occupiers. This envisages shorter stays, and the possibility of retaining a pitch for seasonal travelling (see Somerset County Council v. Isaacs, 2002). ...
Opinion is mixed between case study respondents on whether site residents should continue as licensees or have some form of tenancy. Some feel that good site management requires the ability to – occasionally and in extreme situations – step in quickly and get a troublemaker off the site. This recognises that violence, crime or anti-social behaviour can have the effect of very quickly emptying a site of residents (who are mobile and take their homes with them) as well as potentially causing severe physical damage to the site and its facilities. The opportunity for prompt action is essential to safeguard the interests of respectable residents and staff who have to visit the site. They therefore do not want anything which gives greater security of tenure.
Other local authority respondents argue that licensee status makes Gypsies and other Travellers into second class citizens, and that everything possible should be done to regularise their position alongside tenants in permanent housing. They recognise that most residential sites are now stable and provide long-term accommodation rather than specifically catering for nomadism. They see the advent of introductory tenancies for social housing as a protection against bad behaviour from new residents...
Residents occasionally express the argument often made by site managers... against increasing security of tenure because of the need for a power to be able to get rid of bad or disruptive residents quickly in order to protect the interests of the other residents and the quality of the site as a whole.
On the other hand, lack of security means that even long-standing residents are dependent on the continued goodwill of the operator, to an extent that few of them seem to realise. The more settled people become, the more important tenure seems likely to be to them as long-term residents begin to improve and develop their plots, build sheds of their own, and so on. Some may acquire mobile homes rather than caravans which would be difficult to move and re-site. It is generally thought hard to find space on an official site – particularly on a good one as there aren’t many sites and a lot of them are thought to be full. It can seem unreasonable that people should still be on four weeks notice if they have lived 20 or 30 years in one place, behaved well over that time and have invested in developments of their plot or home.”
66. According to statistics given, evictions in fact occurred on four out of 76 sites during 2000/1 (5%). On three sites there was a single eviction and on one there were three evictions. Reasons seem to have combined both arrears and anti-social behaviour.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 8
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
6


ITEMID: 001-59713
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: DEU
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2001
DOCNAME: CASE OF H.T. v. GERMANY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Antonio Pastor Ridruejo
TEXT: 8. The applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and living in Mettmann.
9. In a letter of 30 December 1985 addressed to the Rheinprovinz Pension Office (Landesversicherungsanstalt), the applicant and her husband, born in 1927, declared that for the purposes of entitlement to a widow’s or a widower’s pension the statutory rules still in force should continue to apply in future (see below, “Relevant domestic law”).
10. On 4 March 1986, following her husband’s death, the applicant applied with the Rheinprovinz Insurance Office for the payment of a survivor’s pension.
11. On 10 June 1986 the Insurance Office issued a decision granting the applicant a survivor’s pension as from 1 March 1986. The Office, referring to the relevant provision of the Workers’ Pension (Reform) Act, further stated that in case that the person concerned had other earned income or income in lieu of earned income, the payment of the survivor’s pension was not suspended during the first year after the spouse’s death. During the second year, the survivor’s pension was reduced by a specific percentage in relation to a dynamic exonerated amount.
12. On 20 June 1986 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint (Widerspruch) with the Pensions Office, which was dismissed on 24 March 1987.
13. By submissions dated 27 April 1987, the applicant, represented by counsel, instituted proceedings with the Düsseldorf Social Court, challenging the above decisions issued by the Rheinprovinz Pension Office. She maintained in particular that the underlying legislation, especially the age-limit for opting out of the new system, was unconstitutional, i.e. in breach of the right to property. In this respect, the applicant noted that, according to information provided by the Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Matters, a constitutional complaint concerning the above issue was pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. She suggested that the proceedings before the Social Court be suspended to await the outcome of the said constitutional complaint proceedings. With her action, the applicant also objected to the calculation of the pension in question.
14. On 24 June 1987 the Düsseldorf Social Court suspended the proceedings pursuant to Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung - see below, Relevant domestic law).
15. On 14 August 1987 the Rheinprovinz Pensions Office reassessed the applicant’s survivor’s pension. Taking her other income into account, the Office suspended the monthly payment of DEM 967.10.
16. By submissions of 10 September 1987, the applicant filed an action with the Düsseldorf Social Court against the decision of 14 August 1987. She again suggested that the proceedings be suspended pending constitutional complaint proceedings in a similar case. The second set of proceedings was, thereupon, also suspended.
17. On 26 February 1993 the applicant requested the Social Court to resume the suspended proceedings. She noted that in the meantime the Federal Constitutional Court had not taken any decisions concerning the legal provision at issue in her case. On 17 March 1993 the Social Court informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed.
18. On 22 July 1993 the Social Court inquired with the Federal Constitutional Court about the state of the constitutional complaint proceedings concerning certain aspects of the reform of the rules governing a survivor’s pension. On 5 August 1993 the Federal Constitutional Court informed the Social Court that two proceedings had terminated in 1987 and that it envisaged rendering a decision in three further cases in 1994.
19. On 17 September 1993 the Social Court held an oral hearing. Following discussion, the parties agreed to a further suspension of the proceedings.
20. On 5 June 1996 the applicant requested the Social Court to resume the proceedings. She submitted that, having regard to the length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court and considering her age, she could no longer be expected to wait. On 18 June 1996 the Social Court informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed. On 5 February 1998 the Social Court inquired again with the Federal Constitutional Court about the state of proceedings before it.
21. On 18 February 1998 the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed two constitutional complaints. It found that the rules introduced by the Survivor’s Pension and Educational Periods Act, in so far as they provided for a suspension of the payment of the survivor’s pension in case of other earned income or income in lieu of earned income, were compatible with the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).
22. On 7 May 1998 the Social Court forwarded the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision to the applicant’s counsel and requested him for comments. After a reminder, the applicant’s counsel asked for an extension of the time limit. After a further reminder, the applicant’s counsel informed the Social Court on 13 October 1998 that he was no longer representing the applicant.
23. On 17 March 1999 the Social Court dismissed the applicants’ actions. It found in particular that in 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court had declared the age-limit of 50 years compatible with the Basic Law. It held that the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions of 1998 had no impact on its decision, as they did not concern the issues raised in the applicant’s action.
24. Before 1 January 1986 men and women had to meet different conditions for entitlement to a widow’s or a widower’s pension, respectively. While a widow was generally entitled to a widow’s pension, a widower could only obtain payment of a widower’s pension if his late wife had mainly provided for the family’s maintenance. In March 1975 the Federal Constitutional Court had held that, having regard to changes in the role of women in marriage and family and the labour market, the existing rules fixing different conditions for entitlement to a widow’s or a widower’s pension had to be replaced by legislation avoiding discrimination.
25. On 1 January 1986 the Survivor’s Pension and Educational Periods Act (Hinterbliebenenrenten- und Erziehungszeiten-Gesetz) of 11 July 1985, amending the relevant provisions of the Employees’ Pension Act (Angestelltenversicherungsgesetz), the Reich Insurance Act (Reichsversicherungsordnung) and the Reich Miners’ Act (Reichsknappschaftsgesetz), entered into force. The Reich Insurance Act, applying to workers, and the Employees’ Pension Act, applying to employees, together with the reform legislation, namely the Workers’ Pension (Reform) Act (Arbeiterrentenversicherungs-Neuregelungsgesetz) and the Employees’ Pension (Reform) Act (Angestelltenversicherungs-Neuregelungsgesetz), formed the basis of the general old age insurance system (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung der Arbeiter und Angestellten). A widow is entitled to a survivor’s pension after the death of her insured husband, and a widower is entitled to a survivor’s pension after the death of his insured wife. Moreover, pursuant to the new legislation, a survivor’s earned income or income in lieu of earned income is taken into account. According to the explanatory report, the latter rule was justified on account of the maintenance function of a survivor’s pension (60% of the spouses’ last income). The reform only concerned pension cases having occurred as from 1 January 1986. Furthermore, for a transitional period until 31 December 1988, spouses could opt for the old regime if they had been married before 1 January 1986 and if they were both older than 50 years at that time. Subsequent reform legislation, including a uniform pension regime for workers and employees, did not affect the substance of the above legislation concerning a survivor’s pension.
26. According to Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court suspends proceedings upon the request of the parties if such a suspension appears reasonable on account of settlement negotiations or for other important reasons.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-83006
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SRB
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF MARČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of P1-1
TEXT: 4. The applicants, Mr Srbislav Marčić (the “first applicant”), Mr Stevan Kostić (the “second applicant”), Mr Slavko Pešić (the “third applicant”), Mr Radoslav Pesić (the “fourth applicant”), Mr Časlav Stošić (the “fifth applicant”), Mr Sreten Stojanović (the “sixth applicant”), Mr Budimir Stajić (the “seventh applicant”), Mr Petar Pesić (the “eighth applicant”), Mr Slađan Stanisavljević (the “ninth applicant”), Mr Branko Dinić (the “tenth applicant”), Mr Saćip Demić (the “eleventh applicant”), Mr Dragan Živković (the “twelfth applicant”), Mr Dragan Nikolić (the “thirteenth applicant”), Mr Zoran Stanojević (the “fourteenth applicant”), Mr Mile Milenković (the “fifteenth applicant”), Ms Branka Mirčić (the “sixteenth applicant”) and Ms Ljiljana Petrović (the “seventeenth applicant”) were all, at the relevant time, citizens of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro who lived in Vladičin Han, Surdulica, Relince, Suva Morava, Suva Morava, Prekodolce, Prekodolce, Vranje, Vladičin Han, Žitorađe, Prekodolce, Vladičin Han, Ravna Reka, Suva Morava, Surdulica, Vladičin Han and Vladičin Han, respectively.
5. In the 1980s all the applicants, except for the twelfth, sixteenth and seventeenth, were employed with “Mehanizacija”, an organisational unit (osnovna organizacija udruženog rada) of a State-owned company called “Erozija”, based in Vladičin Han, Serbia.
6. The father of the twelfth applicant and that of both the sixteenth and seventeenth applicants also worked for the same employer but they died in 1994 and 2001 respectively.
7. On an unspecified date the aforementioned employees issued civil proceedings against “Mehanizacija” before the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Vranje, seeking the payment of salaries which they had earned while working on a project in Iraq.
8. On 10 March 1988 the Commercial Court (Okružni privredni sud) in Leskovac opened insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of “Mehanizacija” (“the debtor”), its decision being published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dated 8 April 1988.
9. Several days prior to this date, the same court appears to have instituted separate insolvency proceedings in respect of “Erozija”.
10. On 20 October 1988 the Labour Court informed the Commercial Court about the plaintiffs' claims which had been specified in US Dollars (“USD”).
11. On 15 October 1990 the Commercial Court recognised these claims as follows: USD 5,240.80 in respect of the first applicant; USD 4,980.80 in respect of the second applicant; USD 2,269.30 in respect of the third applicant; USD 3,244.95 in respect of the fourth applicant; USD 4,935.55 in respect of the fifth applicant; USD 839 in respect of the sixth applicant; USD 4,872.95 in respect of the seventh applicant; USD 4,181.20 in respect of the eighth applicant; USD 5,055.85 in respect of the ninth applicant; USD 5,003.55 in respect of the tenth applicant; USD 2,838.10 in respect of the eleventh applicant; USD 5,173.25 in respect of the twelfth applicant's father; USD 4,186.80 in respect of the thirteenth applicant; USD 4,768.40 in respect of the fourteenth applicant; USD 4,800.00 in respect of the fifteenth applicant; and USD 3,447.50 in respect of the father of the sixteenth and the seventeenth applicants.
12. On 27 December 1990, taking into account the currency exchange rate and the available assets converted into cash (deo unovčene stečajne mase za raspodelu), the Commercial Court adopted a formal decision specifying the exact amounts to be paid by the debtor in Yugoslav Dinars (“YUD”): YUD 2,139 to the first applicant; YUD 2,031 to the second applicant; YUD 925 to the third applicant; YUD 1,323 to the fourth applicant; YUD 2,013 to the fifth applicant; YUD 342 to the sixth applicant; YUD 1,988 to the seventh applicant; YUD 1,705 to the eight applicant; YUD 2,062 to the ninth applicant; YUD 2,041 to the tenth applicant; YUD 1,157 to the eleventh applicant; YUD 2,110 to the twelfth applicant's father; YUD 1,708 to the thirteenth applicant; YUD 1,945 to the fourteenth applicant; YUD 1,956 to the fifteenth applicant; YUD 1,406 to the father of the sixteenth and the seventeenth applicants. All sums were to be paid within fifteen days of the date when the decision of the Commercial Court became final.
13. On 12 February 1991 the Commercial Court's decision was upheld by the High Commercial Court (Viši privredni sud Srbije) and it thereby became final.
14. The claimants appear to have subsequently informed the Commercial Court that they would be willing to accept 40% of their claims in USD (see paragraph 11 above).
15. On 13 March 1996 and 28 August 2001, respectively, the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Vladičin Han declared the twelfth, sixteenth and seventeenth applicants to be their fathers' legal heirs.
16. On 13 December 2004 the applicants sent a letter to the Commercial Court seeking access to the case file, a copy of the formal decision concluding the insolvency proceedings, proof that such a decision, if issued, was published in the Official Gazette and an additional copy of the “cover page” of the case file specifically indicating that the proceedings had ended.
17. In response, they received only a certified copy of the “cover page” without the prescribed indication that the proceedings in question had been concluded.
18. On 7 March 2005 and 1 April 2005 the applicants complained to the Commercial Court and the President of the High Commercial Court. They requested that the proceedings be expedited and noted that the case had been pending for more than 16 years but that they were yet to receive the amounts awarded.
19. It would appear that all the other creditors in the insolvency proceedings had their claims met by the debtor.
20. The Government provided a copy of a form issued by the Registry of the Commercial Court, containing, inter alia, the date “27 December 1990” next to the standard printed rubric entitled “on completion of all business arising from the insolvency proceedings”.
21. Articles 209 and 210, inter alia, stated that special symbols had to be placed next to the registered number of a case, indicating that the proceedings had been concluded.
22. The 2003 Rules repealed the 1993 Rules in July 2003.
23. Articles 236 and 237 of the 2003 Rules correspond, in the relevant part, to the aforementioned text of Articles 209 and 210 of the 1993 Rules.
24. In accordance with Article 146 of the Composition, Insolvency and Liquidation Act 1989 (Zakon o prinudnom poravnanju, stečaju i likvidaciji; published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - OG SFRY - no. 84/89, as well as in the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - OG FRY - nos. 37/93 and 28/96) and Article 120 of the subsequent Insolvency Procedure Act 2004 (Zakon o stečajom postupku; published in OG RS no. 84/04), the insolvency court has to pay the creditors ex officio within fifteen days of/immediately after the decision on the division of the debtor's assets becomes final.
25. Under Article 99 of the 1989 Act and Article 73 of the 2004 Act, starting with the date of institution of the insolvency proceedings, no separate enforcement proceedings in respect of the creditors' main claims can be brought against the same debtor, while any such proceedings which might still be ongoing must be discontinued.
26. In accordance with Articles 149 and 151 of the 1989 Act, as well as Article 125 of the 2004 Act, the insolvency court shall adopt a formal decision upon the “conclusion” (zaključenje) of the insolvency proceedings. This decision shall then be published in the Official Gazette and forwarded to the State's competent “registration” body.
27. Article 20 provides that property can be acquired ex lege, through a legal transaction, by means of inheritance, or on the basis of a decision issued by the State in accordance with the law.
28. Article 36 provides that the deceased's property shall be transferred ex lege to the legal heirs, at the moment of death.
29. Article 130 of the Inheritance Act 1974 (Zakon o nasleđivanju, published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia - OG SRS nos. 52/74, 1/80 and 25/82) and Article 212 § 1 of the subsequent Inheritance Act 1995 (Zakon o nasleđivanju, published in OG RS no. 46/95) both provide that the deceased's estate shall be transferred ex lege to the legal heirs at the moment of death.
30. Article 371 provides that all claims shall become time-barred (zastarevaju) within ten years, unless this Act states otherwise.
31. Article 379 § 1 provides, inter alia, that all claims recognised by a final court decision shall become time-barred within ten years, including those claims which would otherwise have become time-barred within a shorter period of time.
32. Article 360 § 3 provides that courts shall not take into account whether a given claim is time-barred unless and until there is a specific objection by the debtor to this effect.
33. The relevant provisions of this Act are set out in the V.A.M. v. Serbia judgment (no. 39177/05, § 70, 13 March 2007).
34. The relevant provisions concerning the Court of Serbia and Montenegro and the succession of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro are set out in the Matijašević v. Serbia judgment (no. 23037/04, §§ 12, 13 and 16-25, 19 September 2006).