EN
TR
It was in the case of The Kyrtatos v Greece(1) that the Court interpreted the Convention in an original sense. Essentially, the applicants contended that the physical environment of their home was destroyed because of urban development which led to the deterioration of their quality of life, but without threatening their health. Therefore it was claimed that the respondent states violated Article 8 of the Convention. The Court, however, read the Convention in the original sense and accordingly found that there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Indeed, the Court stated that ‘[n]either Article 8 or any of the other Articles of the Convention are specifically designed to provide general protection of the environment […].’(2)…
Another area in which the Court is disposed to read the Convention in the original…
Mr Winterwerp was confined in a psychiatric hospital because of his mental illness…
Later, the Court held its position. Indeed, in Ashingdane v the United Kingdom,(6)…
On a number of occasions the positive obligation of the state to guarantee rights…
However, without showing any interest in the state having a positive duty or negative…
Several years later this issue was brought before the Court in quite a different…
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber.(13) However, when the Court sit as Grand Chamber, it found that there was no violation of Article 8. In reaching this conclusion, not surprisingly, the Grand Chamber invoked the margin of appreciation. The Grand Chamber stated that in acting within their margin of appreciation, states should bear in mind the protection of the environment and when reviewing acts of states, the Court takes into consideration that margin. Therefore, ‘it would not be appropriate for the Court to adopt a special approach in this respect by reference to a special status of environmental human rights.’(14)…
As stated in joint dissenting opinion of the judge Costa, Ress, Türmen, Zupancic,…
Another area in which the Court grants contracting states a wide margin of appreciation…
In Chapman v UK(18) the Court left a wide margin of appreciation to the UK with regard to the right to housing. In the concrete case, having decided to give up a nomadic life style, which is traditionally followed by the Gypsy community to which she belongs, the applicant bought a plot on which to situate the family caravan because there was no place available on the official caravan site for her family. Subsequently, the claimant applied to the local authority to take planning permission. However, her application was refused on the grounds that the land on which she wanted to locate her caravan was situated in the boundaries of the Metropolitan Green Belt. After her application was refused, she was forced to evacuate her land. Before the Court she claimed that the rejection of her application for planning permission and the implementation of the evacuation measure from her own land violated her right to respect for her home, her family and private life, which is under protection of Article 8 of the Convention, and also argued that the development of international law with regard to minorities ought to be taken into account when assessing whether the state had violated her rights, since this development would narrow the margin of appreciation in respect of such rights. Although the Court accepted that the UK violated Article 8 (1) of the Convention, the Court found that the state’s action was in compliance with Article 8, paragraph 2. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article
Although this case partly related to the right to housing it gives valuable information…
