CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 octobre 2012

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 156 October 2012 Chabauty v. France [GC] - 57412/08 Judgment 4.10.2012 [GC] Article 14 Discrimination Inability of small landholders, in contrast to large landholders, to have land removed from control of approved hunters’ association other than on ethical grounds: no violation Facts – The applicant inherited two plots of land with a total surface area of approximately ten hectares. The land is included in the hunting grounds of the approved municipal hunters’ association (“ACCA”). He holds a hunting permit. In France, hunting rights over land belong in principle to the landowner. However, a Law provides for the pooling of hunting grounds within ACCAs. Landowners whose property forms part of the hunting grounds of an ACCA automatically become members of the association. They lose their exclusive hunting rights over their own land but have the right to hunt throughout the area covered by the hunting grounds. The owners of land with a surface area above a certain statutory threshold may, however, object to the inclusion of their land in the ACCA’s hunting grounds or request its removal from them. Since the entry into force of the Law of 26   July 2000, landowners who are opposed to hunting as a matter of personal conviction also have this option, irrespective of the surface area of their land, enabling them to prohibit hunting on their land, including by themselves. In 2002 the applicant informed the Prefect that he wished to have his land removed from the ACCA’s hunting grounds. The Prefect informed him of the procedure to follow in order to have his land removed on account of his opposition to hunting for reasons of conscience. In 2003 the applicant explained to the Prefect that his request for removal of the land was based not on his personal convictions but on the difference in treatment between large and small landowners. In 2004 the request was rejected on the grounds that the applicant had ceased to cite his original reasons, namely his personal convictions, and that he was the holder of a valid hunting permit for the current season. In 2005 the Conseil d’Etat rejected an application by the applicant to have that decision set aside. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: It was apparent from the judgment in Chassagnou and Others that the Court’s findings of a violation in that case had been based to a decisive degree on the fact that the applicants were opposed to hunting on ethical grounds and that issues of conscience were at stake for them. This was also what the French legislature and the Committee of Ministers had inferred from that judgment, which had been executed by means of the enactment of the Law of 26 July 2000. Hence, as the applicant was not opposed to hunting on ethical grounds, no violation of Article   14 in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 could be inferred in the present case from the Chassagnou and Others judgment*. It remained to be determined whether the fact that only owners of land in excess of a certain surface area could avoid its inclusion in the ACCA’s hunting grounds in order to retain their exclusive right to hunt on it constituted, to the applicant’s detriment, a source of discrimination between small and large landowners in breach of the Convention. The difference in treatment complained of by the applicant fell within the scope of “control of the use of property”, a sphere in which the Court acknowledged that States had a wide margin of appreciation. This was particularly so since, while the criterion for making a distinction – “on the ground of property” – could in some circumstances give rise to discrimination prohibited by the Convention, it did not feature among the criteria regarded by the Court as unacceptable as a matter of principle. In its decision in Baudinière and Vauzelle **, the Court had acknowledged that the formation of large, regulated hunting entities as the result of the pooling of hunting grounds within the ACCAs was conducive to ecologically balanced game management, and that by thus seeking to control the impact of hunting on the ecological balance, the French legislation was aimed at the protection of the natural environment, an aim which was indisputably in the general interest. In addition, landowners whose land was included in an ACCA’s hunting grounds merely lost the exclusive right to hunt on their land; their property rights were otherwise unaffected. In exchange, they obtained automatic membership of the ACCA, which allowed them not only to hunt on the whole of the association’s hunting grounds but also to participate in the collective management of hunting throughout that area. Furthermore, landowners who had previously derived an income from hunting or who had made improvements to the land for hunting purposes before joining an ACCA were also entitled to compensation on that basis. In these circumstances, and having regard to the margin of appreciation to be left to the Contracting States, the fact of obliging only small landowners to pool their hunting grounds with the aim – which was legitimate and in the general interest – of promoting better management of game stocks was not in itself disproportionate to that aim. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). *   Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, 29   April 1999, Information Note   5. **   Baudinière and Vauzelle v. France (dec.), 25708/03 and 25719/03, 6   December 2007.   © 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