Search
document

Document text Analytics

B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11930/86 • ECHR ID: 001-614

Document date: July 8, 1986

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11930/86 • ECHR ID: 001-614

Document date: July 8, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 July 1986, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

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

Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 February 1986 by

E. and B.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 December

1985 under file No. 11930/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are of British nationality, born in 1929 and 1937

respectively, and are resident in Helston, Cornwall. The facts as

submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.

In 1973 the applicants bought a small dairy farm of 90 acres, where

they produced milk with relative success. In late 1981 however the

applicants decided to give up dairying for a period, because of

Government pressure and the need to reinvest capital to refurbish the

farm. The Ministry advised the applicants not to consider any

outgoing scheme if they wished to leave dairying on a temporary basis

since they would not receive adequate compensation and they would be

excluded from returning to milk production for four to five years. The

applicants were not informed of the EEC milk regulations which were

soon to be adopted.

The applicants changed to raising beef. They received no compensation

for giving up dairy production. By letter of 22 February 1982, they

were informed that they had been removed from the register of dairy

farmers.

The applicants found they were unable to raise enough stock to make

this type of farming viable. They wished to return to dairying and

applied for a milk quota which is necessary for milk production under

the new EEC regulations as applied in the United Kingdom by the Dairy

Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 (SI No. 1047).

They were informed by letter of 16 August 1984 from the Milk Marketing

Board that a quota could only be issued to farmers producing milk

during the reference period i.e. 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983

providing milk was also being produced on 2 April 1984.

The applicants applied to the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal, an

independent body with the specific responsibility of considering

special and exceptional hardship applications.

By a decision dated 27 June 1985, the tribunal rejected the claim on

the grounds that the registration of dairy produced quotas under Dairy

Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 is confined to producers and intending

producers of milk in occupation of holdings before 31 March 1985 and

producing, selling or delivering dairy produce therefrom. The

applicants were informed that the regulations made no provision for

review of the tribunal's decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they have been refused a milk quota and

have therefore been prevented from carrying out the activity of dairy

farming on their farm. This is the only activity which would be

viable, beef production having proved impractical and any development

for the purposes of tourism being restricted by the designation of the

area as one of "outstanding natural beauty". The dairy machinery

which was kept for milk production is now worthless and the farm has

become economically unviable.

The applicants invoke Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

THE LAW

The applicants complain they have been prevented from carrying out

dairy farming on their land.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) 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."

With regard to the present complaint, the Commission observes that the

applicants have not been deprived of any property by the refusal of

the United Kingdom authorities to allocate a milk quota to them.

Accordingly the Commission finds that there cannot be said to be any

deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence

of the first paragraph of Article 1 (P1-1).

The Commission furthermore finds that although the restrictions on the

applicants' use of their land as a dairy farm may be considered as an

interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their

possessions, this interference is nevertheless justified under the

second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as being lawful

restrictions for the control of the use of property in accordance with

the general interest in the regulation of milk production.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27, para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For this reason, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant