Search
document

Document text Analytics

SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 23442/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45861

Document date: January 21, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 23442/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45861

Document date: January 21, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 23442/94

Carol and Walter 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

Walter Smith against the United Kingdom.

2. The applicants are British citizens. They were born in 1959 and

1971 respectively 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 September 1991 by the local council.

On 19 December 1991 the local council issued enforcement notices

in respect of the applicants` occupation of the land. The applicants

appealed. On 17 July 1992 the appeal was rejected.

Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants for

non-compliance with the enforcement notices. The prosecution against

the first applicant was withdrawn on 29 September 1993 and the second

applicant was given 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 28 October 1993 and registered

on 11 February 1994.

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 of 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) (Art. 30-1-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. 23442/94 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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant