CONCURRING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY

      I agree with the opinion expressed by the majority, but wish to

add some further considerations which led to my voting for a finding

of violation.  As noted in the Report, the Commission's case-law

indicates that the traditional life-style of a minority may attract the

guarantees of Article 8.

      It is my understanding that for many decades now in the part of

Europe this case concerns developments in the field of social security,

the decline in a market for traditional gypsy skills and the

development of the countryside have led to a situation where many

gypsies wish to remain for the greater part of the year on one spot,

while preserving their tradition of moving to halting-spots from time

to time.  Mothers are particularly concerned to ensure that the

traditional way of life does not have an unduly adverse effect on the

continuity of education of children, and their prospects for the

future.

      On the other hand, many members of the settled community do not

welcome gypsies to their vicinity.  They may impose strong pressure on

local or national elected representatives to prevent sites being

established in their neighbourhood.

      Central Government has a difficult task in taking measures, such

as the introduction of legislation, to respect the traditional way of

life of gypsies while at the same time having regard to the principle

of subsidiarity and the role of local authorities in planning matters.

The 1968 Act and Circular 1/94 from the Department of Environment to

local authorities (summarised at paragraphs 46 to 57 of the Report)

seem to reflect some such concern to take into account several

competing interests.

      However, the application in the present case of the relevant

legislation failed to achieve due balance.  On the one hand there was

a mother who had apparently saved enough money to buy a site and who

was concerned to ensure continuity of education for her children.  The

children of school-going age had integrated in their local school.  On

the other hand, first, the Secretary of State had decided that it was

"expedient" to make a Section 10 Order criminalising roadside parking,

notwithstanding that adequate accommodation (halting or permanent

sites) had not been provided by the local authority and second, the

local authority in dealing with the applicant's planning application

placed greater emphasis on what are  not totally convincing planning

considerations than they did on the special position of the applicant.

In particular, the applicant's wish to ensure that her children might

continue their education and that they might continue to be reared in

the comparatively gentle environs of her sister's home do not seem to

have been factors that the legal system took cognizance of.

      Whether the question is analyzed in terms of a positive duty on

the State - to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the

applicant's rights under paragraph 1 of Article 8 - or in terms of an

"interference by a public authority" to be justified in accordance with

paragraph 2, regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be

struck between the competing interests of the individual and that of

the community as a whole, and in any case the State enjoys a certain

margin of appreciation (Lopez Ostra v. Spain, Judgment of

9 December 1994).

      Having regard to the foregoing considerations an addition to

these in the Commission's Report, and despite the margin of

appreciation left to the respondent State, I consider that the State

did not succeed in striking a fair balance between the interest of

controlling development by planning measures and the applicant's

enjoyment of her right to respect as a gypsy for her home and her

private and family life.

                                                        (Or. English)