James v United Kingdom
Leasehold enfranchisement legislation which allowed tenants to buy the freehold of their homes at less than market value did not breach the right to property, because it pursued a legitimate aim of social justice.
Facts
The trustees of the estate of the Duke of Westminster owned many residential properties in Belgravia, which were let on long leases. Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, tenants with long leases could compulsorily acquire the freehold of their houses, at a price calculated under the Act, which was often far below the market value. The trustees lost many properties under the Act, and complained that this was a deprivation of their possessions in breach of article 1 of Protocol No 1.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation. The court said that the taking of property in pursuance of a policy calculated to enhance social justice within the community can properly be described as being in the public interest, even if the community at large has no direct use or enjoyment of the property taken. The national authorities have a wide margin of appreciation in implementing social and economic policies, and the court will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is in the public interest unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation. Compensation at less than market value could be justified by legitimate objectives of public interest.
Related cases on discrimination, property, education and elections (article 14 and the Protocols)
- Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363
- Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1979) 1 EHRR 252
- Burden v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 38
- DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3
- Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
- JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 45
- Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium (1988) 10 EHRR 1
- Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, [2015] AC 901
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
