Tag Archive for 'Article 6'

Safe European Home*

We noted J. L. v the United Kingdom here. Now there are two further English possession cases at the ‘questions to the parties’ stage of the European Court of Human Rights.

Birch and Others v UK Application no. 26393/10

Birch arises out of possession proceedings brought by Bedfordshire DC on a property which had been leased, short term, to a housing association which had, in turn licences a co-op group to grant assured shorthold tenancies to occupiers on its behalf. The lease had been granted in 1993 and expired in 1996. It was not renewed but negotiations went on and the co-op continued to grant ASTs to occupiers. In 2006, … Read the full post

Lease without end?

Ferreira v Portugal App No 41696/07 (21/12/2010) [Link is to judgment in French, the only available version. Update 4/5/2011 - link now works. Can't link properly to ECtHR site.]

We’re indebted to Legal Action’s ‘Recent Developments in housing law’ for this one, not least because the European Court of Human Rights judgment is only available in French, and my legal French is a bit insuffisant. The translation is welcome…

This is a very interesting judgment in respect of the Court’s attitude to Article 1 Protocol 1 rights, Article 8 rights, statute and margins of appreciation, albeit perhaps of no immediate application outside Portugal.

Mr & Mrs Ferreira held the … Read the full post

Adverse Possession: Articles 1, 6 and freedom of speech?

Agnes Ofulue v the United Kingdom Application no. 52512/09 ECtHR

This admissibility hearing was the culmination of a long, long story. We reported the Court of Appeal judgment and the House of Lords judgments. The very abbreviated history was that in 2005, the Ofulues had lost a possession claim for a property on the basis that the Bosserts, who had lived in the property since 1981, had gained title through adverse possession.

The Ofulues appealed on the basis that the law on adverse possession constituted a breach of Article 1, Protocol 1,and Art 6, and further that i) the Bosserts had acknowledged that they were tenants in a defence … Read the full post

Missing letters, Reviews and Determinations of Civil Rights

Tomlinson & Ors v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8

This is the Supreme Court judgment on the appeal from the Court of Appeal of what was then called Ali & Ibrahim v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA 1228 [our report here]. At issue was whether the Housing Act 1996 s.202 review and s.204 appeal to the County Court procedure was compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Or pace Lord Hope:

i) Does an appeal under section 204 of the 1996 Act involve the determination of a “civil right” for the purposes of article 6(1) either generally or in cases such as the … Read the full post

Homeless reviews and fact finding in the Supreme Court

We’ve been told that Ali & Ibrahim v Birmingham City Council (now Ali, Ibrahim and Tomlinson v BCC) was heard in the Supreme Court today, 23 November, and continues tomorrow. Our report on the Court of Appeal judgment ([2008] EWCA 1228) is here. The issue is whether Housing Act 1996 s.202 reviews are Article 6 compliant. Judgment now awaited – this should be significant, either way.… Read the full post

Article 6, outsourced reviews and bias.

The outsourcing of s.202 Housing Act 1996 reviews by local authorities to private, commercial bodies came under scrutiny in Charlotte Augustin v London Borough of Barnet, Central London County Court, 22 May 2009 (no report available online yet). There are a couple of Court of Appeal cases on the same issue coming up, so we will be revisiting it.

This was a s.204 appeal, heard by Mr Recorder Hollington QC, of a s.202 review decision, purportedly by Barnet, upholding their decision that an offer of temporary accommodation had been suitable. The s.202 decision was actually made by Mr Minos Perdios, the director of Housing Reviews Limited (HRL), a private … Read the full post

Gilboy redux

Gilboy, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 751 is the appeal from the Judical Revew decision noted in this previous post.

The appeal, was by general consent, on one issue alone. Does the internal review procedure for reconsideration by local housing authorities of a decision to terminate a demoted tenancy established by sections 143E-143F of the Housing Act 1996 and the Demoted Tenancies (Review of Decisions (England) Regulations 2004 violate Article 6 of ECHR?

My previous notes contain the meat of the issue. The argument, extended from the High Court Tsfayo issues, was that the availability of Judicial Review could not … Read the full post



row of sheds footer image
2 pages