SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 22902/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45860
Document date: January 21, 1997
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 22902/93
Carol and Steven Smith
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 21 January 1997)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES
(paras. 1 - 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
(paras. 4 - 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
(paras. 6 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 12 - 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . 4
I. THE PARTIES
1. This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30
para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by Carol and
Steven Smith against the United Kingdom.
2. The applicants are British citizens. They were born in 1961 and
reside in Willingham. In the proceedings before the Commission the
applicants were represented by Mr. Luke Clements, a solicitor
practising in Hereford.
3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their
Agent, Mr. Martin Eaton, Deputy Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision
on admissibility of 12 October 1994, annexed hereto, and may be
summarised as follows:
The applicants, gypsies by birth, bought a plot of land in or
about 1990 and moved on to it in a caravan. They applied
retrospectively for planning permission, which was refused on
26 June 1991 by the local council.
On 19 December 1991 two enforcement notices were issued by the
local council requiring them to remove all caravans from the site. The
first applicant`s appeal against these notices was rejected on
5 June 1992 by a planning inspector.
The applicants` further application for planning permission to
occupy their land with their caravans was refused on 5 June 1993.
Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants for
non-compliance with the enforcement notices.
On 29 September 1993 the case against the first applicant was
withdrawn and the second applicant was convicted, received a
conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £75 costs.
5. The applicants complained before the Commission that they were
prevented from living with their family in caravans on their own land
and from pursuing their traditional way of life as gypsies.
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
6. The application was introduced on 1 March 1993 and registered on
10 November 1993.
7. On 8 March 1994 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant
to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the
application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to
submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.
8. The Government's observations were submitted on 12 May 1994. The
applicants replied on 5 August 1994 after one extension in the
time-limit. On 5 July 1994 the Commission granted the applicants legal
aid for the representation of their case.
9. On 12 October 1994 the Commission declared the application
admissible. The Commission also decided to adjourn further
consideration of the application pending the outcome of the case of
Buckley v. the United Kingdom.
10. On 6 November 1996 the Government submitted further observations
in the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of Buckley v. the
United Kingdom. On 26 November 1996 the applicants` solicitors informed
the Commission that in the light of the judgment of the Court in the
case of Buckley v. the United Kingdom it was no longer realistic to
pursue the complaint further and they agreed to the case being struck
out.
11. The Commission adopted the present Report and decided to transmit
it to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and
to publish it. The following members of the Commission were present
when the Report was adopted:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
M. R. NICOLINI
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
12. The Commission notes that the applicants` representative in his
letter of 26 November 1996 informed the Commission that the applicants,
in the light of the Court`s judgment in the case of Buckley v. United
Kingdom (see European Court H.R., judgment of 25 September 1996, to be
published in the Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1996) agree to
their case being struck out.
13. In the light of the above considerations, the Commission
concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application,
within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
14. Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the
Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect
for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the
further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1
in fine of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 22902/93 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;
ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;
DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers and
the Parties for information, and to publish it.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber