Search
document

Document text Analytics

WALKER-BOW v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 17176/90 • ECHR ID: 001-807

Document date: December 3, 1990

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

WALKER-BOW v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 17176/90 • ECHR ID: 001-807

Document date: December 3, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17176/90

by John WALKER-BOW

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 3 December 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 20 July 1990

by John WALKER-BOW against the United Kingdom and registered

on 19 September 1990 under file No. 17176/90;

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 1925. He is

represented by Edwin Coe, solicitors practising in London.

The applicant purchased a house in Jersey in 1968 for the sum

of £50,000. Following a period of ill-health, the applicant decided

to leave Jersey and in or about September 1986 he placed his house on

the market at an estimated market value of £1.5 million.

Pursuant to the housing legislation applicable to the sale of

property in Jersey, the applicant's property was classified as

"category K" and any proposed sale had to be approved by the Housing

Committee. Further, in or about the end of 1986, the number of

persons allowed to enter Jersey to take up residence under "Category

K" was reduced to 5 per annum.

The applicant subsequently experienced difficulty in finding a

purchaser for his property. He found a purchaser Mr. L. in or about

late 1987 but Mr. L. later reneged from the agreement. The applicant

being desperate to sell, finally accepted an offer of £1.1 million

from another purchaser Mr. K., but this sale fell through when Mr. K.

was refused permission by the Housing Committee to reside in Jersey.

Following representations by the applicant, the Housing

Committee finally agreed to grant Mr. K. permission to reside in

Jersey. The applicant then entered into further negotiations with

Mr. K. and states that he was obliged to accept the "unrealistic"

sum of £1.2 million for a property which he then considered to have

a value of £2 million. The contract of sale was signed on 21 January

1990.COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of having been forced to sell his

property at a low price. He complains that the decision of the

Housing Committee refusing entry to Mr. K. was arbitrary and delayed

the sale. He complains that he did not have the possibility of

choosing the purchaser of his own property and suffered a "de facto

deprivation" which was not in the public interest. He invokes

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of having been forced to sell his

property at a low price. He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) to the Convention which provides:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way

impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems

necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the

general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other

contributions or penalties."

The Commission recalls that the applicant's complaints arise

out of the difficulty which he experienced in selling his property on

Jersey and of the low price which he considers that he was obliged to

accept. The Commission finds that this situation did not amount to a

"de facto deprivation" of his property, but that the restrictions

imposed on sales, which had to be to persons approved for entry by the

Housing Committee, amounted to a control of use within the meaning of

the second paragraph of the above provision. The Commission on

examination of the facts as submitted by the applicant finds that the

restriction was lawful and that it pursued the legitimate aim of

controlling the population density of an island limited in area and of

ensuring the availability of housing for persons with strong

connections or associations with the island (see mutatis mutandis

Eur. Court H.R., Gillow judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A

no. 109, pp. 21-22, paras. 53-55). The Commission notes that

restrictions as to entry and the sale of property had been in force

when the applicant entered the island.

The Commission therefore considers that the effect on the

sales price of his property as a result of the limited number of

prospective buyers does not disclose any violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant