Gillow Case

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