CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   346 13.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT McCANN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of McCann v. the United Kingdom (application no. 19009/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   75,000 (less EUR   850 in legal aid paid by the Council of Europe) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Gerrard McCann, is a British national who was born in 1968 and lives in Birmingham (United Kingdom).   The case concerns Mr   McCann’s complaint about eviction proceedings brought against him by Birmingham City Council.   Mr   McCann and his ex-wife were secure tenants, under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985, of a three-bedroom house belonging to Birmingham City Council. The marriage broke down and, in April 2001, Mrs   McCann asked to be re-housed on grounds of domestic violence. In August 2001 she and the children moved into another council house allocated to them in accordance with the local authority’s domestic violence policy. She informed the local authority that she was giving up the tenancy and returned the keys of the house. As far as the local authority was concerned, the three-bedroom house was from then on uninhabited.   In November 2001, however, the applicant moved back into the vacant house and did a considerable amount of work to renovate it.   His relationship with Mrs   McCann 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, and having taken legal advice, visited Mrs   McCann and asked her to close the tenancy by signing a notice to quit. The effect of this notice under domestic law was to bring an end to the tenancy. Mrs   McCann signed the notice but, a week later, requested for it to be withdrawn.   In June 2002 the local authority decided, among other things, that in accordance with the domestic violence policy, the applicant would not be granted the right to accede to the former tenancy of the house and that, in any event, he had no dependants living with him and would not therefore qualify for such a dwelling.   In April 2003 the local authority’s claim for possession against the applicant was dismissed. The County Court judge found that Mrs   McCann had not been advised and had not understood that the notice to quit would effectively remove her ex-husband’s right to live in the house or exchange it for another local authority property.   On appeal, however, it was found that the local authority had acted lawfully and that the notice to quit was effective despite it having been signed without an understanding of its consequences. That decision was upheld in the judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant and again on appeal.   The applicant was evicted from the house on 22   March 2005.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20   May 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lech Garlicki (Polish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained about the eviction proceedings brought against him by Birmingham City Council. He alleged, in particular, that in asking his ex-wife to sign a notice to quit, the local authority gave no consideration to his relationship with his children who stayed with him three nights a week.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court found, as also accepted by the British courts and the parties, that the council house formerly occupied by the applicant with his ex-wife as a joint tenant and where he had lived on his own from November 2001, had continued to be his “home”, within the meaning of Article 8   §   1.   It was also agreed that the notice to quit, together with the possession proceedings, had amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home. The Court considered that that interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim 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. It also aimed to ensure that the statutory scheme for housing provision was properly applied.   The Court noted that any person at risk of losing his home, which is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for one’s 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, it would have had to apply for a possession order and, in those proceedings, 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 Mrs   McCann 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 had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.   The Court therefore concluded that, under the summary procedure available to a landlord where one joint tenant served notice to quit, the applicant had been dispossessed of his home without any possibility to have the proportionality of that measure determined by an independent tribunal, in violation of Article   8.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.