CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 décembre 1990

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 17176/90                       by John WALKER-BOW                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 December 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 20 July 1990 by John WALKER-BOW against the United Kingdom and registered on 19 September 1990 under file No. 17176/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1925.   He is represented by Edwin Coe, solicitors practising in London.           The applicant purchased a house in Jersey in 1968 for the sum of £50,000.   Following a period of ill-health, the applicant decided to leave Jersey and in or about September 1986 he placed his house on the market at an estimated market value of £1.5 million.           Pursuant to the housing legislation applicable to the sale of property in Jersey, the applicant's property was classified as "category K" and any proposed sale had to be approved by the Housing Committee.   Further, in or about the end of 1986, the number of persons allowed to enter Jersey to take up residence under "Category K" was reduced to 5 per annum.           The applicant subsequently experienced difficulty in finding a purchaser for his property.   He found a purchaser Mr.   L. in or about late 1987 but Mr.   L. later reneged from the agreement.   The applicant being desperate to sell, finally accepted an offer of £1.1 million from another purchaser Mr.   K., but this sale fell through when Mr.   K. was refused permission by the Housing Committee to reside in Jersey.           Following representations by the applicant, the Housing Committee finally agreed to grant Mr.   K. permission to reside in Jersey.   The applicant then entered into further negotiations with Mr.   K. and states that he was obliged to accept the "unrealistic" sum of £1.2 million for a property which he then considered to have a value of £2 million.   The contract of sale was signed on 21 January 1990.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of having been forced to sell his property at a low price.   He complains that the decision of the Housing Committee refusing entry to Mr.   K. was arbitrary and delayed the sale.   He complains that he did not have the possibility of choosing the purchaser of his own property and suffered a "de facto deprivation" which was not in the public interest.   He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   THE LAW           The applicant complains of having been forced to sell his property at a low price.   He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention which 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."           The Commission recalls that the applicant's complaints arise out of the difficulty which he experienced in selling his property on Jersey and of the low price which he considers that he was obliged to accept.   The Commission finds that this situation did not amount to a "de facto deprivation" of his property, but that the restrictions imposed on sales, which had to be to persons approved for entry by the Housing Committee, amounted to a control of use within the meaning of the second paragraph of the above provision.   The Commission on examination of the facts as submitted by the applicant finds that the restriction was lawful and that it pursued the legitimate aim of controlling the population density of an island limited in area and of ensuring the availability of housing for persons with strong connections or associations with the island (see mutatis mutandis Eur.   Court H.R., Gillow judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, pp. 21-22, paras. 53-55).   The Commission notes that restrictions as to entry and the sale of property had been in force when the applicant entered the island.           The Commission therefore considers that the effect on the sales price of his property as a result of the limited number of prospective buyers does not disclose any violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.           It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission             (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)