Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T17:17:35.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gillow Case

European Commission of Human Rights.  03 October 1984 ; 24 November 1986 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Human rights — Respect for home and family life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8 — Right of owner of house to occupy as resident — State control of housing — Guernsey — Housing Law restricting right of residence to persons having a strong association with Guernsey — Ownership of house on Guernsey not necessarily sufficient grounds for obtaining residence licence — Whether Housing Law an interference with right to respect for home — Whether interference necessary in a democratic society — Application of Law in particular case — Married couple refused residence licence to occupy house which they had owned for twenty years — Couple previously enjoying right of residence — Right removed by change in law — Couple refused licence to return to live in Guernsey after period of employment abroad — Property rights — Protocol No. 1, Article 1 — Whether Housing Law involved a deprivation of property — Whether an unreasonable interference with right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Access to court and fair hearing — Whether requirement that appeal be lodged by a lawyer an interference with right of access to a court — Refusal of residence licence while appeal pending — Impartiality of tribunal — European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 — Discrimination — Preference to persons having a strong association with Guernsey — Whether reasonable — Article 14

Expropriation — Taking — Whether restriction on right to occupy house irrespective of ownership a deprivation of property — Whether an unreasonable interference with enjoyment of possessions — Public interest

States — Dependent territories — Guernsey — Application of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, and Protocols — Protocol No. 1 applicable to dependent territories only if State responsible for their international relations has made an express declaration to that effect — No such declaration made with regard to Guernsey

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Procedure — Question raised after close of oral proceedings — State notifying Court that Protocol No. 1 had not been declared applicable to dependent territory whose conduct was in issue — Court required to investigate matter proprio motu — Uncontested allegation — Duty of Court to pronounce thereon

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)