Chapman v. The United Kingdom

Chapman v. The United Kingdom The margin of appreciation accorded to national authorities varies according to the nature of the Convention right in issue, its importance for the individual and the nature of the activities restricted, as well as the nature of the aim pursued by the restrictions. While there is an emerging international consensus recognising the special needs of minorities and an obligation to protect their security, identity and lifestyle, the consensus was not sufficiently concrete to derive any guidance as to the conduct or standards of Contracting States. The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority meant there was a positive obligation to facilitate the gypsy way of life. Article 8 did not impose an obligation to make available to the gypsy community an adequate number of suitably equipped sites. Article 8 did not give a right to be provided with a home. Whether the State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home was a matter for political not judicial decision. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Chapman v. The United Kingdom

Human Rights Case Digest, Volume 12 (1-2): 25 – Jan 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/chapman-v-the-united-kingdom-KN0xxWftku
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2001 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0965-934X
eISSN
1571-8131
D.O.I.
10.1163/157181301401012122
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The margin of appreciation accorded to national authorities varies according to the nature of the Convention right in issue, its importance for the individual and the nature of the activities restricted, as well as the nature of the aim pursued by the restrictions. While there is an emerging international consensus recognising the special needs of minorities and an obligation to protect their security, identity and lifestyle, the consensus was not sufficiently concrete to derive any guidance as to the conduct or standards of Contracting States. The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority meant there was a positive obligation to facilitate the gypsy way of life. Article 8 did not impose an obligation to make available to the gypsy community an adequate number of suitably equipped sites. Article 8 did not give a right to be provided with a home. Whether the State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home was a matter for political not judicial decision.

Journal

Human Rights Case DigestBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off