The applicants had been evicted, following the service of a notice to quit, from a caravan site where they had lived for many years. The respondent admitted that the eviction constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, even though they had by that stage no rights in relation to it. The Commission made no ruling: ‘The Commission has considered whether the termination of the applicants’ occupation of the site in accordance with the tenancy agreement can be considered as an interference with their rights under Article 8 para 1 . . of the Convention. Even assuming that it could constitute an interference, however, the Commission finds that it would be justified under Article 8 para 2 . . of the Convention . .’ The Commission pointed out that the applicants could not derive from article 8 an unconditional right to remain on the site. Inadmissible.
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Land
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185439