Search
document

Document text Analytics

C. ; S. ; and T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11931/86 • ECHR ID: 001-615

Document date: July 8, 1986

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

C. ; S. ; and T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11931/86 • ECHR ID: 001-615

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

Sir Basil HALL

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

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

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 19 August 1985 by

W.C., F.S. and J.T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 16

December 1985 under file No. 11931/86;

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 British citizens, born in 1900, 1925 and 1932

respectively, and resident in Cheshire. The first applicant is a

retired member of Macclesfield Borough Council, the second applicant

is a member of the Liberal Party active in local affairs and the third

applicant is a member of the Macclesfield Borough Council and a member

of the Area Planning Committee for Wilmslow.

On 8 November 1984, the Refuge Assurance Company lodged an application

for permission to transfer its Head Office to a green belt site

between Wilmslow and Alderley Edge.

The application was strongly opposed inter alia by the Greater

Manchester County Council and local residents. However by letter of

7 February 1985 the Minister of the Environment refused to intervene to

call in the application for his own determination. The application

was accordingly considered and accepted by the main Planning Committee

on 11 February 1986 and their decision approved by the Macclesfield

Borough Council on 28 February 1985.

By the Planning Regulations of the Council all planning applications

must first be submitted to the appropriate Area Sub-Committee except

those of a significant character which go directly to the main

Planning Committee. This committee has wide delegated powers and

their recommendations are irrevocable. Their decisions are formally

approved by the full council and discussion is not permitted.

The fifteen local councillors of Wilmslow and Alderley Edge are on the

Area Sub-Committee: however only six of these sit on the main

Committee which consists of 24 members. Nine local councillors

including the third applicant therefore did not take part in the

discussion or voting on the application concerning the Refuge

Assurance Company on 11 February 1985. On 28 February 1985 the

decisions of the main Planning Committee were brought before the full

council for approval. An attempt was made to exclude the refuge

application from the usual en bloc formal approval by the local

councillors for the area but this was heavily defeated.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that nine of the local councillors including

the third applicant elected by the Wilmslow and Alderley Edge

residents were unable to vote on a major planning decision concerning

their own area, and that the local residents were thereby

disenfranchised as a result of the operation of the planning

regulations. They also complain that the local representatives

including the third applicant were prevented effectively from speaking

to oppose the application, since no discussion or vote on the merits

was allowed in full council.

The applicants invoke Articles 10 (art. 10) of the Convention and

3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3).

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain that nine of their local

representatives, including the third applicant, were unable to vote on

a matter significant to their area as a result of the rules governing

delegation of planning applications.

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) states that:

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at

reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will

ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice

of the legislature."

This Article (P1-3) protects the right of the people by means of free

elections to choose the "legislature". However, in this case, even

assuming the delegation of planning powers can be said to

disenfranchise the applicants, the Commission finds that Macclesfield

Borough Council cannot be said to be a legislature within the meaning

of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3). The Commission notes that the

council does not possess any inherent rule-making power and such

powers exercised by it are exercised subject to the control of the

Parliament of the United Kingdom (see also Application Nos. 5155/71,

11377/85 and 11391/85 to be published in D.R.).

Accordingly, the Commission rejects this part of the complaint as

being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the

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

of the Convention.

2. The applicants also complain that nine of their local

representatives, including the third applicant, were prevented from

speaking in the debate on the application in the planning committee or

in debating the matter in full council.

Article 10 (art. 10) states that:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right

shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart

information and ideas without interference by public authority

regardless of frontiers. This Article (art. 10) shall not prevent

States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or

cinema enterprises."

The Commission notes that the first and second applicants were not

members of the council and therefore under the rules of the council,

were unable to participate themselves in any debate. However,

Article 10 (art. 10) cannot be construed so as to give them a right

either to take part in the debate themselves or to secure that a

particular number of their representatives should be able to speak for

them in such debate. The Commission recalls that six of their local

councillors were in fact able to participate in the main Planning

Committee's deliberations.

The third applicant is himself a member of the council but under the

rules governing procedure cannot attend the main planning committee or

debate the delegated planning matters in full council. The Commission

finds however that Article 10 (art. 10) cannot be said to confer on

every local councillor a right to speak on each committee and that the

exercise of the council's discretion to delegate planning applications

subject to the above rules does not disclose a violation of Article 10

(art. 10) of the Convention.

An examination of this complaint as it has been submitted therefore

does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 10

(art. 10) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of 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

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant