CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1998

.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 Nos. 37664/97 and 37665/97                       by R. C. and                       by A. W. A. and 1566 Others                         and Application No. 37974/97                       by J. W. A. and 234 Others                         and Application No. 37979/97                       by R. C. A. and 3 Others                         and Application No. 37982/97                       by J. E. R.                         and Application No. 38910/97                       by K. A. and 70 Others                         against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:              MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                  N. BRATZA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the applications introduced on respectively: 26 August, 15, 16 and 17 September and 5 December 1997 by respectively: R. C. and A. W. A. and 1566 Others, J. W. A. and 234 Others, R. C. A. and 3 Others, J. E. R., K. A. and 70 Others and registered on respectively 5 September 1997 under file Nos. 37664/97 and 37665/97, 1 October 1997 under file Nos. 37974/97, 37979/97, 37982/97, and 9 December 1997 under file No. 38910/97.        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 applicants are represented before the Commission by Edwin Coe, Solicitors, London.   The facts of the applications, as submitted by the applicants' representatives, may be summarised as follows.   A.    Particular circumstances of the case        The applicant in Application No. 37664/97 is a member of the Shield Shooting Centre in Dorset.   He used to own 5 full bore pistols and has enjoyed pistol shooting as a leisure activity for over 20 years.   He used to shoot competitively and spent on average 4 hours per week shooting.   He also enjoys the discussion and study of technical developments relating to handguns; the social aspects of club membership; developing ammunition; studying the history of handguns and mastering shooting different types of handguns.   There are no specific details provided in respect of the applicants in the other five applications.        On 27 February 1997, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (the "First Amendment Act") was enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.   The First Amendment Act was passed in response to a shooting in Scotland where an individual entered a school and shot dead a teacher and several children.   The Government subsequently established an inquiry which led to the amendment to the Firearms Act 1968.   The First Amendment Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to have in their possession, or to purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell or transfer handguns other than small-calibre handguns.   The First Amendment Act provides for a scheme of compensation for the loss of valuable guns.   The First Amendment Act came into force on 1 July 1997. A second statute, the Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997 (together with the First Amendment Act, "the 1997 Amendment Acts") came into force on 1 March 1998 to extend the scope of the prohibition to include small-calibre pistols.        The applicants complain that they are no longer able to pursue their hobby lawfully and have received no compensation for the loss of their leisure activity.   They allege that this is a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   B.    Relevant domestic law        The 1997 Amendment Acts amend Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 thereby extending the prohibition on the possession of guns.   Section 5 now provides, so far as relevant, as follows:        "(1)   A person commits an offence if, without the authority of            the Defence Council, he has in his possession, or purchases            or acquires, or manufactures, sells or transfers -            ...              (aba)       any firearm which has a barrel less than                       30 centimetres in length or is less than                       60 centimetres in length overall, other than an                       air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm                       designed as signalling apparatus."      Under Section 15 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of State is given power to arrange for handguns which fall within the prohibition to be surrendered to the police.   Under Sections 16 to 18 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of State is to make schemes providing for compensation to be paid:        "(i)   to the owners of handguns for the value of handguns which            individuals were lawfully entitled to have in their            possession before 16 October 1996 [14 May 1997 for small-            calibre guns] or which individuals had lawfully contracted            before that date to acquire; and        (ii)   for ancillary equipment, being equipment designed or            adapted for use with the prohibited firearm and which had            no practicable use in connection with any firearm which was            not prohibited."        In accordance with Section 18 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of State made schemes which provided for compensation payments to be made (the "Schemes") and which came into force on 1 July 1997 (1 March 1998 for small-calibre guns).   In broad terms the Schemes provide for compensation to be payable to handgun owners on three different bases.   "Option A" allows for the payment of a flat rate of £150 for every large calibre handgun (£100 for every small-calibre handgun) and flat rates for ancillary items.   "Option B" allows for the payment of a value commensurate with the values set out for individual items set out in annexes to the Schemes.   "Option C" provides for a payment at full market value in respect of handguns and ancillary items which have been adapted in a manner which increases their value.     COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain that they are not entitled to any compensation under either the 1997 Amendment Acts or the Schemes in respect of the loss of amenity suffered due to the prohibition of handguns.   (The files do not indicate whether or not the applicants have received compensation for the guns they had in their possession.) They allege violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.    The Commission notes that the applications are similar as regards the subject matter, the complaints and the representatives, and finds it appropriate to join them.   2.    The applicants have lost the ability to pursue shooting as a leisure activity due to the 1997 Amendment Acts prohibiting the possession of handguns.   They claim that their right to pursue their hobby falls within the meaning of "possessions" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and that the interference by the United Kingdom Government with their leisure pastime constitutes a violation of this Article.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides, so far as relevant, as follows:        "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..."        The Commission recalls that the word "possession" has been given a wide meaning in the context of Article 1 (Art. 1) but in substance it guarantees the right to property (see Eur. Court HR, Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 27-28, para. 63):        "By recognising that everyone has the right to the peaceful      enjoyment of his possessions, Article 1 (Art. 1) is in substance      guaranteeing the right of property.   This is the clear impression      left by the words "possessions" and "use of property" (in French:      "biens", "propriété", "usage des biens"); the "travaux      préparatoires", for their part, confirm this unequivocally: the      drafters continually spoke of "right of property" or "right to      property" to describe the subject-matter of the successive drafts      which were the forerunners of the present Article 1 (Art. 1)."          The right to pursue a hobby cannot be said to constitute a "possession" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention which does not guarantee the right to pursue a particular leisure activity.        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.    The applicants also complain that they do not have an effective remedy in the United Kingdom to pursue a claim for compensation and allege a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13).        Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides as follows:        "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a      national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been      committed by persons acting in an official capacity."        The Commission recalls that the guarantees of Article 13 (Art. 13) apply only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31).   In the present case, the Commission has rejected the substantive claims as disclosing no appearance of a violation of the Convention.   For similar reasons, they cannot be regarded as "arguable".      It follows that this part of 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        DECIDES TO JOIN APPLICATION NOS. 37664/97, 37665/97, 37974/97,      37979/97, 37982/97 AND 38910/97, and        unanimously,      DECLARES THEM INADMISSIBLE.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                               M.P. PELLONPÄÄ      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber