(Admissibility) The violation of the right to respect for their homes and family and private lives which was alleged by the applicants, arose because of the pollution of the area by dust caused by building works in the Docklands area. A distinction had been made between those applicants with a proprietary interest in the land and those without such an interest.
Held: ‘For the purposes of article 8 of the Convention, there is no such distinction. ‘Home’ is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a ‘home’ which attracts the protection of article 8(1) of the Convention will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links (see Gillow v United Kingdom (1986) 11 EHRR 335). Even where occupation of the property is illegal, this will not necessarily prevent that occupation from being that person’s ‘home’ within the meaning of article 8 of the Convention (see Buckley v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 101). The Commission considers that article 8(1) applies to all the applicants in the present case whether they are the owners of the property or merely occupiers living on the property, for example the children of the owner of the property.’
(1998) 26 EHRR CD 212
Applied – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Housing
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185443