James v United Kingdom

rdf:langString James v United Kingdom

rdf:langString James v United Kingdom

rdf:langString Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster one of the four appellants, the trustees of the Will of Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster

rdf:langString [1986] ECHR 2

rdf:langString European Court of Human Rights

rdf:langString James and Others v United Kingdom

rdf:langString Plenary Session

rdf:langString Right to buy further interest in housing; private compulsory purchase; landlord and tenant ; validity of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; Human Rights Law; enforced sale of residual property rights in houses and to collectives.

rdf:langString James v United Kingdom [1986] is an English land law case, concerning tenants' (lessees') statutory right to enfranchise a home from their freeholder (ultimate landlord) and whether specifically that right, leasehold enfranchisement, infringes the freeholder's human rights in property without being in a valid public interest. The plenary session of the court unanimously confirmed that even if it can be shown such enfranchisement deprives a natural or legal person of their "peaceful enjoyment of their possessions" the above procedure is in the public interest and strictly subject to the conditions provided for by the law of England and Wales. The rights are effected (enacted) in pursuance of legitimate social policies and so meet the exception expressly in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the (European) Convention on Human Rights. The court clarified on housing policy: "Eliminating what are judged to be social injustices is an example of the functions of a democratic legislature. More especially, modern societies consider housing of the population to be a prime social need, the regulation of which cannot entirely be left to the play of market forces."

rdf:langString "for the reasons given...above, there are no grounds for finding that the enfranchisement of the applicants’ properties was arbitrary because of the terms of compensation provided for under the leasehold reform legislation. For the rest, in the Court’s opinion, such other requirements as may be included in the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law" were satisfied in the circumstances of the taking of the applicants’ properties..."