CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 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 64 May 2004 Connors v. the United Kingdom - 66746/01 Judgment 27.5.2004 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Eviction of a family from a local authority gypsy caravan site: violation Facts : The applicant and his family, who are gypsies, were granted a licence in 1998 to occupy a plot at a gypsy site run by a local authority. Apart from one year in which they had moved into a rented house, they had lived at the site permanently for thirteen years. One of the conditions in their licence for the occupation of the plot was that no nuisance was to be caused by the occupier, his guests or any member of his family. A year later the applicant's adult daughter was also granted a licence to occupy the adjacent plot. The local authority complained of the unruly conduct of the applicant's children and guests and warned him that the incidents of nuisance could jeopardise his occupation of the plot. In January 2000, notice to quit was served on the family, requiring them to vacate both plots. No detailed reasons were given. In March 2000, the local authority issued two sets of proceedings for summary possession, relying on domestic legislation which established that the contractual right of occupiers of gypsy caravan sites could be determined by four week's notice. The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court. In June 2000, the County Court granted a possession order. As the family had not given up possession on the date indicated in the court order, the local authority commenced enforcement of the eviction in August 2000. The applicant and his son were arrested for obstruction during the eviction operation. The family took up occupation on land nearby which was also owned by the local authority and where the presence of gypsies was sometimes tolerated. The local authority commenced new eviction proceedings against another group of gypsies on this piece of land and included the applicants as “unknown persons”. The applicant alleges that following the eviction from this land he and his family were required to move on repeatedly. He subsequently separated from his wife, who chose to move into a house with the younger children. The son who stayed with him did not return to school as they were unable to remain in any place for more than two weeks, and his own health problems were aggravated. Law : Article 8 – The parties agreed that the eviction of the applicant and his family from the caravan site disclosed an interference with his Article 8 rights which was “in accordance with the law” and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of other occupiers of the site. It was not for the Court to assess if the incidents of nuisance complained of by the local authority were true or not. The local authority had relied on domestic legislation which permitted it to give the applicant 28 days' notice before regaining summary possession without having to prove any breach of licence. The central issue was therefore whether the applicable legal framework provided the applicant with sufficient procedural protection of his rights. Given the seriousness of the interference with the applicant's rights, which required weighty reasons of public interest, the State's margin of appreciation was to be correspondingly narrowed. The Government argued that exempting local authority gypsy sites from security of tenure provisions was necessary to address their nomadic lifestyle needs and anti-social behaviour on sites. However, most local authority sites were nowadays residential in character. The mere fact that anti-social behaviour occurred on local authority gypsy sites could not either, in itself, justify a summary power of eviction. The Court was not persuaded there were any particular features about the local authority gypsy sites which would render their management unworkable if they were required to give reasons for evicting long-standing occupants. As the local authority was not required to establish any substantive justification for the eviction of the applicant, judicial review could not provide an opportunity for an examination of the facts in dispute between the parties. Even allowing for the margin of appreciation which was to be afforded to the State in such circumstances, the Government had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for a statutory scheme which had permitted the summary eviction of the applicant and his family. The power to evict without the burden of reasons liable to be examined as to their merits by an independent tribunal had not been shown to respond to any specific goal. The eviction of the applicant had not been attended by the requisite procedural safeguards and thus could not be regarded as justified by a “pressing social need” or proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 8. Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 14,000 euros 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