CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 69 November 2004 Ward v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 31888/03 Decision 9.11.2004 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Respect for private life Refusal to relocate gypsy site subject to high levels of noise and pollution: inadmissible The applicant has been living on a caravan site with his family since 1972. Given the site’s location close to a motorway bridge and a railway line, the applicant has for a long time been campaigning for its relocation. In 1992 he obtained a report from Health Officers which indicated that the conditions at the site were unsatisfactory and prejudicial to health. In 2002, another report confirmed that the site was not a suitable location for a gypsy site because of the levels of noise and pollution. Following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, the applicant renewed a request for relocation of the site, invoking arguments under the Convention. The authorities responded that they were under no duty to provide a new site and that no valid claims arose under the Convention. Moreover, refurbishment of the site was envisaged. Judicial review proceedings were refused. Inadmissible under Article 3: Whilst it appeared from the evidence submitted by the applicant that levels of pollution were above desirable norms, it had not been shown that the conditions at the site placed the applicant or his family at a significant risk of harm: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 8: The applicant had moved into the site voluntarily and had not shown any efforts to find another official gypsy site, where vacancies arose periodically. As there were no exceptional circumstances, the applicant could not derive a right under this provision to be provided with alternative housing by the State. Moreover, the authorities had taken measures to improve the situation at the site. In such circumstances, there had been no interference with the applicant’s right to respect for home or private life: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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