DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. E. BUSUTTIL

      I voted against violation in this case because I had taken the

view, at the admissibility stage, that the applicant could not be

considered a victim of any violation of her rights to respect for her

family life, private life and home under Article 8 para. 1 of the

Convention.

      No one had prevented the applicant from conducting her family and

private life in a caravan home.  She was merely prevented from camping

her caravans on land which lacked the requisite planning permission.

Indeed, to allow her to pursue the traditional lifestyle of a gypsy to

her heart's content, she had repeatedly been invited by the authorities

concerned to apply for a vacant pitch on a nearby official caravan site

where vacancies frequently occurred.  She had stubbornly refused to do

so for spurious reasons, as the letter dated 3 May 1994 from the Legal

and Housing Director of the South Cambridgeshire District Council to

her solicitors makes abundantly clear.  Thus in the letter the Director

describes the condition of the site as "immaculate" and the site

residents as "pleasant, friendly people" in sharp contrast to the

applicant's claim that it was an unsafe location for a single woman

living alone with her children.

                                                         (Or. French)