PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs J. Liddy joined by

Mr S. Trechsel, Mrs G.J. Thune, MM C.L. Rozakis, D. Šváby,

G. Ress and A. Perenič

As to Article 8 (para. 577 of the Report)

The applicant Government’s complaints under this heading include a complaint of interference with the homes and private and family lives of the Turkish Cypriot gypsy community. They refer to the demolition of the houses of a gypsy community near Morphou upon the order of the local authorities.  There was witness evidence that this had been done without any prior warning allegedly for reasons of hygiene.  Adjacent similar shacks of other inhabitants of the village had not been removed.  The gypsies ended up living in the open air.

The respondent Government have not pointed to any remedy that would compel the authorities to provide adequate alternative accommodation for the gypsies prior to the demolition of their shacks or that, after the event, would have been realistically available and effective in providing alternative accommodation speedily.

In Buckley v. United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996 (Series A vol. 1996-IV, paras. 76, 77, 80, 81, 83 and 84) the Court took into account a number of factors relevant to the need to respect the traditional lifestyle of gypsies before concluding that the refusal of planning permission to a gypsy to live in a caravan was a justified interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home.  It stated that the interests of the community were to be balanced against the applicant’s right to respect for her home, a right which was pertinent to her and her children’s personal security and well-being.  The Court’s task was to determine whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual and whether the reasons relied on to justify the interference were relevant and sufficient.  In the Buckley case the applicant had been able to make representations to the authorities and her special needs as a gypsy following a traditional lifestyle were taken into account.  She was twice given the opportunity to apply for a pitch on an official caravan site not far away.  In the event she was merely fined for failing to remove her unauthorised caravan and was not forcibly evicted.  The Court concluded that proper regard was had to her predicament both under the terms of the regulatory framework, which contained adequate procedural safeguards protecting her interest under Article 8, and by the responsible planning authorities when exercising their discretion in relation to the particular circumstances of her case.

In the present case there is no indication that adequate procedural safeguards were in place prior to the demolition without notice of the gypsies’ homes near Morphou.  Moreover, it has not been shown that the authorities had proper regard to the gypsies’ predicament when exercising their discretion to demolish their shacks but not the adjacent villagers’ shacks.  It is not established that the reasons relied upon were relevant and sufficient, and in particular, whether they took into account the availability or otherwise of alternative accommodation.

In these circumstances there has been a violation of Article 8 by reason of the demolition of the homes of the Turkish Cypriot gypsy community.