Beard v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 24882/94)

A Gypsy couple were refused planning permission for mobile homes on their land. The European Court of Human Rights held there was no breach under Article 8 and Article 14 as the measures were proportionate with a legitimate aim.

Facts 

The applicants, who are Gypsies, purchased land in the UK in 1986 with the intention of using it as a site for their mobile home. The local council refused planning permission for six mobile homes to stay on the site in 1992, and the applicants were subsequently served with an enforcement notice. The applicants challenged the enforcement notice in the courts, but their appeals were ultimately dismissed. In 1996, the local council sought to enforce the notice, and the applicants refused to comply. They were subsequently prosecuted and convicted for failing to comply with the notice. They left their land as a result and have since been without a fixed address for their caravans.

Issues 

The applicants alleged that their rights under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention were violated. Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence, while Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention.  

They argued that the decision to refuse planning permission was unlawful and that the subsequent enforcement action was a disproportionate interference with their rights. 

Reasoning  

The Commission found that there was no violation of Article 8 as the interference with the applicants' right to respect for their home and private life was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim, including that of safety which had been identified by inspections on the site and consideration of the impact on local traffic. The Commission held that the interference was necessary in a democratic society, as there had been a pressing social need to prevent unlawful development, and the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The Court was not convinced that Article 8 could be interpreted to make available to the gypsy community an adequate number of suitably equipped sites, as Article 8 did not give a right to be provided with a home. 

Regarding Article 14, the Commission found that there had been no discrimination against the applicants, as they had not provided evidence to establish that the measures taken against them were motivated by discriminatory intent or that they were subjected to treatment different from that of others in similar situations. Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was no violation of Article 14. 

Conclusion: 

The European Court of Human Rights ultimately found no violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.