Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
may be treated as equivalent to “home” within the meaning of Article 8 (National Federation of Sportspersons’ Associations and unions (FNASS) and Others v. France, § 158). 424. Whilst the Court has acknowledged the existence of a “home” in favour of an association complaining of surveillance measures (Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v.Bulgaria), an association cannot itself claim to be a victim of a violation of the right to respect for one’s home on account of pollution (Asselbourg and Others v. Luxembourg (dec.)). 425. The Court has laid down certain limits on the extension of the protection of Article 8. It does not apply to property on which it is intended to build a house, or to the fact of having roots in a particular area (Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), § 66); neither does it extend to a laundry room, jointly owned by the coowners of a block of flats, designed for occasional use (Chelu v. Romania, § 45); an artist’s dressingroom (Hartung v. France (dec.); land used by the owners for sports purposes or over which the owner permits a sport to be conducted (for example, hunting, Friend and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 45); industrial buildings and facilities, such as a mill, bakery or storage facility used exclusively for professional purposes (Khamidov v. Russia, § 131 and compare and contrast Bostan v. the Republic of Moldova, § 19 and Surugiu v. Romania) or for housing farm animals (Leveau and Fillon v. France (dec.)). Similarly, a building that is not inhabited, empty or under construction may not be qualified as a “home” (Halabi v. France, § 41). 426. Additionally, where “home” is claimed in respect of property in which there has never been any, or hardly any, occupation by the applicant or where there has been no occupation for some considerable time, it may be that the links to that property are so attenuated as to cease to raise any issue under Article 8 (Andreou Papi v. Turkey, § 54). The possibility of inheriting title to property is not a sufficiently concrete link for the Court to conclude that there is a “home” (Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], §§ 136-137). Moreover, Article 8 does not extend to guaranteeing the right to buy a house (Strunjak and Others v. Croatia (dec.)) or imposing a general obligation on the authorities to comply with the choice of joint residence elected by a married couple (Mengesha Kimfe v. Switzerland, § 61). Article 8 does not in terms recognise a right to be provided with a home (Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 99; Ward v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Codona v. the United Kingdom (dec.)), let alone a specific home or category of home – for instance, one in a particular location (Hudorovič and Others v. Slovenia, § 114). An intrusion into a person’s home can be examined in the light of the requirements of protection of “private life” (Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, § 107). 427. The Court has accepted material such as documents from the local administration, plans, photographs and maintenance receipts, as well as proof of mail deliveries, statements of witnesses or any other relevant evidence (Prokopovich v. Russia, § 37), as examples of prima facie evidence of residence at a particular property (Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan, where the applicant did not submit any evidence in order to support the existence of sufficient and continuous links with an apartment, §§ 72-75).
2. Examples of “interference” 428. The following can be cited as examples of possible “interference” with the right to respect for one’s home: deliberate destruction of the home by the authorities (Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, § 86; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey [GC], § 88; Menteş and Others v. Turkey, § 73) or confiscation (Aboufadda v. France (dec.)); refusal to allow displaced persons to return to their homes (Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], § 174) which may amount to a “continuing violation” of Article 8; the transfer of the inhabitants of a village by decision of the authorities (Noack and Others v. Germany (dec.));
European Court of Human Rights
99/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
