CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 20 novembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sA54E3CC5 { font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s41AD9A95 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:26pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4F666911 { font-size:10pt; letter-spacing:0.25pt } .s69DB9EB2 { font-family:'Times New Roman' } .s919E91DC { width:32.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC6B9718B { color:#181716 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA6033488 { list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65C12FFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt } .sADEDA2F2 { width:32.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9EDF98E8 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:22.11pt } .sB59CBA1A { color:#000080 } .s9E3A994D { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:22.66pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)237 Buckland contre Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 40060/08 BUCKLAND 18/08/2012 18/11/2012   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 20 novembre 2013 lors de la 1185e (Budget) réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire et la violation constatée   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -                  de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -                  de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables   ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)1009 )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action report   Buckland v United Kingdom (Application No. 40060/08), ( Anglais uniquement ) judgment final on 18 December 2012 Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 17 September 2013   Case summary   -                       The applicant, a Gypsy, was threatened with eviction from her home on a caravan site in Wales after a possession order was made against her in August 2005. She left the caravan site in May 2008 for alternative accommodation. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a procedural violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) because although the applicant was able to argue for repeated suspensions of the possession order made against her, she was unable to argue that no possession order should have been made at all. It was not possible at that time to challenge a decision to make a possession order on the basis of its alleged disproportionality in light of personal circumstances. Accordingly, the Court found that the procedural safeguards required by Article 8 for the assessment of the proportionality of the interference had not been observed (§ 69).   -                       This case followed Connors v United Kingdom in which the ECtHR held that the lack of procedural safeguards against eviction from local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites breached Article 8 of the Convention. Following the case of Connors, the UK Government enacted amendments to the Caravan Sites Act 1968 enabling the courts to suspend, for up to twelve months at a time, the enforcement of a possession order made in respect of local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites; and amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 requiring local authorities to demonstrate that a possession order ought to have been made. The amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 had not entered into force in Wales at the time that the facts in the case of Buckland took place or when the case was brought before the ECtHR. The Committee of Ministers closed its examination of the execution of Connors in Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)174 having noted the contents of the action report provided by the UK Government which indicated that the implementation of the relevant legislation in Wales remained outstanding but was being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Buckland case.   Individual measures                   Just satisfaction : -                       The just satisfaction award has been paid and evidence was previously submitted.   Other individual measures : -                       The applicant requested just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The ECtHR awarded the sum of 4,000 Euros, which was paid in due time. -                       The applicant left the caravan site in May 2008 and is living in alternative accommodation. It should be noted that if any steps were taken to evict the applicant in the future, she would now be able to rely on the Mobile Homes Act 1983, as amended, which enables domestic courts in Wales to assess the proportionality of a proposed eviction in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 8 (see under general measures below). -                       In the circumstances, the government considers that no further individual measures are required.   General measures                   Following Connors , the government has brought into force in England and Wales legislation that provides improved protection against eviction for occupiers of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites. In particular, the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 was enacted. Section 318 makes changes to the definition of “protected site” within section 5(1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 so that Gypsies and Travellers who reside on local authority sites are now afforded greater security of tenure. In order to evict a Gypsy or Traveller from one of their sites a local authority will need to satisfy the court that a term of the agreement to occupy a pitch has been breached, that the occupier has failed to comply with a notice to remedy the breach, and that it is reasonable to terminate the agreement. Section 318 entered into force in England on 30/04/2011.                   Following a public consultation in Wales on consequential amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which lasted for three months and involved Gypsies and Travellers, representative bodies and local authority site owners, section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 came into force on 10 July 2013 . A commitment to making this legislation was contained in ‘Travelling to a Better Future – a framework for action’ (2011).                   The ECtHR, in paragraph 69 of its judgment in Buckland , observed that the above amendment to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 permits a court considering whether or not to make a possession order to examine the reasonableness of the termination of the licence. It noted that the amendment had already entered into force in England but not in Wales. It then expressed the view that once it had come into force in Wales, domestic courts in Wales will be able to assess the proportionality of a proposed eviction in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention.                   Publication :   -                       The judgment of the European Court was published in the following law websites -                       BAILLI website: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1710.html -                       LAG Housing Law website : http://laghousinglaw.com/2012/10/05/buckland-v-uk/ -                       New Law Journal: http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/human-rights%E2%80%94right-respect-private-and-family-life%E2%80%94gypsy   Dissemination :   The Department for Communities and Local Government issued a guidance document Applying the Mobile Homes Act 1983 on local authority traveller sites to all local authorities in England in April 2011: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/mobilehomesguidance This guidance was sent out to local authorities so that they would be aware of the changes that would apply to their traveller sites following implementation of legislation to improve protection against eviction for occupiers of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites in England.   The Welsh Government also encouraged all local authorities in Wales to participate in the consultation process proposing this implementation. Officials also visited every local authority Gypsy and Traveller site in Wales to conduct consultation sessions. The final proposals were sent to all local authorities in Wales as well as discussed at an All-Wales Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Forum convened by the Welsh Government.                   State of execution of judgment:   -                       The observations made by the ECtHR at paragraph 69 in Buckland support the government’s position that the judgment will be implemented once section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 has entered into force in Wales.   -                       The Welsh Government commenced section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 on 10 July 2013. The Government therefore considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.