CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 janvier 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   030 22.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASE OF CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Thursday 22 January 2004 at 9 a.m.   The applicant   The case concerns an application (no. 66746/01) brought by a United Kingdom national, James Connors, who was born in 1955 and lives in or about Lancashire.   Summary of the facts   The applicant and his family are Gypsies, who led a traditional travelling lifestyle. However, they claim that they suffered so much from harassment and from being moved on with ever increasing frequency that they settled on the local authority’s Gypsy site at Cottingley Springs in Leeds (England), where they lived permanently for about 13 years. In February 1997 they moved on, complaining about, among other things, violence and disturbances preventing them from sleeping at night and the children from playing safely during the day. They moved into a rented house but were unable to adapt.   In October 1998 the applicant and his wife returned to Cottingley Springs and were licensed to occupy a plot at the site provided they, their family and guests did not cause a “nuisance” to those living on the site or in its vicinity. On 29 March 1999 the applicant’s adult daughter Margaret Connors was granted a licence to occupy the adjacent plot, where she lived with Michael Maloney. The applicant’s adult sons did not live with the applicant, but were frequent visitors to the site.   On 31 January 2000 notice to quit was served on the family requiring them to vacate both plots, on the ground that Michael Maloney and the applicant’s children – including his adult sons – misbehaved and caused considerable nuisance at the site. The applicant disputed the allegations. On 20 March 2000 the local council issued proceedings for summary possession of both plots.      At this stage, the applicant and his wife lived with their four young children, aged 14, 13, ten and four months. The baby had kidney problems and the applicant’s wife, who was asthmatic, had suffered several attacks requiring visits to hospital. The applicant, who had been having chest pains, was waiting for a hospital appointment. One child had settled well into full-time education at the nearby primary school, and the others were receiving assistance, including teaching at home.   In the early hours of 1 August 2000 the council evicted the family in an operation which lasted five hours. The caravan the family owned was not returned, the applicant claims, until late that afternoon. On 3 August the council returned their possessions, which were dumped on the roadside some distance away from the applicant’s caravan.   The applicant alleges that the family received no assistance or advice as to where they could go, except for an offer of accommodation at Bridlington (on the east coast of England) which failed to take into account the family’s local community ties; they had lived on the Cottingley Springs site for almost 13 years and in the Leeds area for some 20 to 30 years.   The applicant states that, since the eviction, his family has been required to move on repeatedly and that the stress and uncertainty contributed to his wife’s decision to move into a house and to their separation in May 2001. According to the United Kingdom Government, the applicant moved in with his wife and youngest child in late 2002.   Complaints   The applicant complains under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 29 January 2001 and declared admissible on 14 November 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian) , Egil Levits (Latvian) , Anatoly Kovler , (Russian) Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani) , substitute judges   and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Derek Walton , Agent , Timothy Mould , Counsel , Vivienne Goulburn , David Gleave , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Alex Offer , Counsel , Keith Lomax , Adviser .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.