CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mai 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 108 May 2008 McCann v. the United Kingdom - 19009/04 Judgment 13.5.2008 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Eviction of council-house tenant under summary procedure affording inadequate procedural safeguards: violation   Facts : The applicant and his wife were secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985 of a three-bedroom house belonging to the city council. The marriage broke down and the wife obtained an order requiring the applicant to leave the matrimonial home on grounds of domestic violence. After she and the children had been re-housed, the applicant moved back into the vacant house and did a considerable amount of renovation work. His relationship with his wife improved and she supported his application for an exchange of accommodation with another local-authority tenant, as the three-bedroom house was too big for him but he still required a home in the area so that his children could visit. In January 2002 a housing officer, having realised that the property was not in fact empty, visited the applicant’s wife and got her to sign a notice to quit. The wife says that she was not advised and did not understand at that time that this would extinguish the applicant’s right to live in the house or to exchange it. The local authority then sought a possession order which it obtained on appeal, the appellate court finding that the local authority had acted lawfully and that the notice to quit was effective even though it had been signed without an understanding of its consequences. That decision was upheld in judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant and again on appeal. The applicant was evicted from the house. Law : Article 8 – The notice to quit and possession proceedings amounted to interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home. That interference was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the local authority’s right to regain possession of property from an individual who had no contractual or other right to be there and of ensuring that the statutory scheme for housing provision was properly applied. The Court noted that any person at risk of losing his home should be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal, even if, under domestic law, the right of occupation had come to an end. The legislature in the United Kingdom had set up a complex system for the allocation of public housing which included, under section   84 of the Housing Act 1985, provisions to protect secure tenants with public authority landlords. Had the local authority sought to evict the applicant in accordance with that statutory scheme, the applicant could have asked the court to examine his personal circumstances, including the need to provide accommodation for his children and whether his wife had really left the family home because of domestic violence. However, the local authority had chosen to bypass that statutory scheme by asking the applicant’s wife to sign a common law notice to quit, which had resulted in the termination of the applicant’s right, with immediate effect, to remain in the house. The authority, in the course of that procedure, had not given any consideration to the applicant’s right to respect for his home. Nor had the ensuing possession proceedings or judicial review proceedings provided any opportunity for an independent tribunal to examine whether the applicant’s loss of his home was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. It was immaterial whether or not the wife had understood or intended the effects of the notice to quit. The procedural safeguards under the summary procedure available to a landlord where one joint tenant served a notice to quit were inadequate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes