Search
document

Document text Analytics

BUCKLAND AND FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 32876/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3425

Document date: December 3, 1996

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

BUCKLAND AND FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 32876/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3425

Document date: December 3, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 32876/96

by Ann Buckland and family

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1996, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 21 May 1996 by

Ann Buckland and family against the United Kingdom and registered on

5 September 1996 under file No. 32876/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1956 and resident in

Tanworth in Arden. She complains on her own behalf and on behalf of her

husband, her four children, her sister and her husband and their three

children, all of whom live at the same address. She is represented

before the Commission by Messrs. Tyndallwoods, solicitors practising

in Birmingham. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant and her family are Romany gypsies who have lived

a traditional nomadic life for many generations. They live in caravans

and travel together as a family.

In October 1993, the applicant and her sister purchased land

known as the Paddock in Tanworth in Arden, Warwickshire, in order to

provide a stable home for their families, education for the children

and care for their health, in particular in the case of one of the

daughters of the applicant's sister who is suffering from a terminal

illness.

The applicant and her family took up residence on their land in

April 1994. The local authority served an enforcement notice on them

on 2 August 1994 requiring the removal of the caravans for which no

planning permission had been given. The applicant's appeal was heard

before an Inspector at a Public Inquiry on 13 February 1996. The

decision of the Inspector dated 26 March 1996 rejected the appeal and

refused to grant planning permission. The inspector found that the

development intruded on a special landscape area and site of special

scientific interest, was subject to noise levels from the adjacent

motorway which exceeded the relevant guidelines and increased

unacceptably the risk of accidents on the adjoining highway. The

inspector had regard to the gypsy status of the applicant and her

family and their medical and educational needs but found that these did

not outweigh the planning objections.

It is expected that the local authority will proceed to take

action to secure the removal of the applicant and her family from their

land.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant claimed that her rights under Article 8 of the

Convention are being interfered with since she was being prevented

firstly, from living with her family in caravans on their own land and

secondly, from pursuing the traditional gypsy lifestyle and culture.

The applicant also invoked Article 14, claiming that she was

being discriminated against on the grounds of being a Romany gypsy and

Article 1 of Protocol No.1 in respect of being denied the right to live

peacefully with her family on their own land.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 21 May 1996 and registered on

5 September 1996.

The Court delivered its judgment in Buckley v. the United Kingdom

on 25 September 1996 (Eur. Court HR to be published in Reports 1996).

On 23 October 1996, the applicant's representatives wrote to the

Commission stating that they wished to withdraw the application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that the applicant's representatives wish

to withdraw the application following the Court's judgment in the

Buckley case, where it found no violation of Article 8 of the

Convention in relation to the refusal of planning permission to the

applicant, a gypsy, to reside in caravans with her children on her own

land.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant

does not intend to pursue her application before the Commission. The

Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined

in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of

the application.

It follows that the application may be struck out of the list of

cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant