CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG21
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 juillet 1986
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:1986:0708DEC001193086
- Date
- 8 juillet 1986
- Publication
- 8 juillet 1986
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 July 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                         G. SPERDUTI                         E. BUSUTTIL                         G. JÖRUNDSSON                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                         J. CAMPINOS                         H. VANDENBERGHE                    Mrs   G.H. THUNE                       Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission     Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 13 February 1986 by E. and B.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 December 1985 under file No. 11930/86;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicants are of British nationality, born in 1929 and 1937 respectively, and are resident in Helston, Cornwall.   The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.   In 1973 the applicants bought a small dairy farm of 90 acres, where they produced milk with relative success.   In late 1981 however the applicants decided to give up dairying for a period, because of Government pressure and the need to reinvest capital to refurbish the farm.   The Ministry advised the applicants not to consider any outgoing scheme if they wished to leave dairying on a temporary basis since they would not receive adequate compensation and they would be excluded from returning to milk production for four to five years. The applicants were not informed of the EEC milk regulations which were soon to be adopted.   The applicants changed to raising beef.   They received no compensation for giving up dairy production.   By letter of 22 February 1982, they were informed that they had been removed from the register of dairy farmers.   The applicants found they were unable to raise enough stock to make this type of farming viable.   They wished to return to dairying and applied for a milk quota which is necessary for milk production under the new EEC regulations as applied in the United Kingdom by the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 (SI No. 1047).   They were informed by letter of 16 August 1984 from the Milk Marketing Board that a quota could only be issued to farmers producing milk during the reference period i.e. 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983 providing milk was also being produced on 2 April 1984.   The applicants applied to the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal, an independent body with the specific responsibility of considering special and exceptional hardship applications.   By a decision dated 27 June 1985, the tribunal rejected the claim on the grounds that the registration of dairy produced quotas under Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 is confined to producers and intending producers of milk in occupation of holdings before 31 March 1985 and producing, selling or delivering dairy produce therefrom.   The applicants were informed that the regulations made no provision for review of the tribunal's decision.   COMPLAINTS   The applicants complain that they have been refused a milk quota and have therefore been prevented from carrying out the activity of dairy farming on their farm.   This is the only activity which would be viable, beef production having proved impractical and any development for the purposes of tourism being restricted by the designation of the area as one of "outstanding natural beauty".   The dairy machinery which was kept for milk production is now worthless and the farm has become economically unviable.   The applicants invoke Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   THE LAW   The applicants complain they have been prevented from carrying out dairy farming on their land.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides:   "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."   With regard to the present complaint, the Commission observes that the applicants have not been deprived of any property by the refusal of the United Kingdom authorities to allocate a milk quota to them. Accordingly the Commission finds that there cannot be said to be any deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 (P1-1).   The Commission furthermore finds that although the restrictions on the applicants' use of their land as a dairy farm may be considered as an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, this interference is nevertheless justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as being lawful restrictions for the control of the use of property in accordance with the general interest in the regulation of milk production.   It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For this reason, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission        Acting President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                              (J.A. FROWEIN)  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
- Formation
- 21
- Date
- 8 juillet 1986
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1986:0708DEC001193086
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral