Facts:  a Gypsy woman purchased land in 1985 with the intention of living on it in a caravan after a history of continual eviction and harassment. She was refused planning permission to reside on the land and was given 15 months to vacate the land.  She claimed that her right to respect for her home, family and private life (Article 8) and her right to non-discrimination (Article 14) had been violated.

 

Decision:  The Court held that there had been a ‘interference’ with the enjoyment of a home, as well as private and family life since what was in issue was a traditional way of life.

 

The Court, however, applied the exception in Article 8(2) that such interference was “necessary in a democratic society.” The land was the subject of environmental protection and a wide margin of discretion was to be accorded to planning issues.  The Court also noted that the emerging consensus among Contracting states of the Council of Europe on the special needs of minorities and an obligation to protect their security, identity and lifestyle was not sufficiently concrete for the Court to derive any guidance as to the conduct or standards for treatment of minorities, which Contracting States consider desirable in any particular situation. The right to non-discrimination was likewise not violated since any differences in treatment were a legitimate aim for environmental protection and any discrimination was proportionate to those aims.

 

Right to education relevance – this case gives an example of how interferences, even apparently discriminatory ones, can be justified under some legitimate aims as prescribed in the law such as the protection of the environment.
NB it will normally be the case as it was here, that such interference in the right will have to be proportionate to the aim.

 

Adapted from COHRE’s Litigating Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Legal Practitioners Dossier" (2006) http://www.cohre.org/store/attachments/COHRE%20Legal%20Practitioners%20Dossier.pdf at pp.260-1