R.C. and Others v. United Kingdom



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application Nos. 37664/97 and 37665/97

by R. C. and

by A. W. A. and 1566 Others

and Application No. 37974/97

by J. W. A. and 234 Others

and Application No. 37979/97

by R. C. A. and 3 Others

and Application No. 37982/97

by J. E. R.

and Application No. 38910/97

by K. A. and 70 Others

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the applications introduced on respectively:

26 August, 15, 16 and 17 September and 5 December 1997 by respectively:

R. C. and A. W. A. and 1566 Others, J. W. A. and 234 Others, R. C. A.

and 3 Others, J. E. R., K. A. and 70 Others and registered on

respectively 5 September 1997 under file Nos. 37664/97 and 37665/97,

1 October 1997 under file Nos. 37974/97, 37979/97, 37982/97, and

9 December 1997 under file No. 38910/97.

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are represented before the Commission by

Edwin Coe, Solicitors, London. The facts of the applications, as

submitted by the applicants' representatives, may be summarised as

follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant in Application No. 37664/97 is a member of the

Shield Shooting Centre in Dorset. He used to own 5 full bore pistols

and has enjoyed pistol shooting as a leisure activity for over

20 years. He used to shoot competitively and spent on average 4 hours

per week shooting. He also enjoys the discussion and study of

technical developments relating to handguns; the social aspects of club

membership; developing ammunition; studying the history of handguns and

mastering shooting different types of handguns. There are no specific

details provided in respect of the applicants in the other five

applications.

On 27 February 1997, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (the

"First Amendment Act") was enacted by the Parliament of the United

Kingdom. The First Amendment Act was passed in response to a shooting

in Scotland where an individual entered a school and shot dead a

teacher and several children. The Government subsequently established

an inquiry which led to the amendment to the Firearms Act 1968. The

First Amendment Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to have

in their possession, or to purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell or

transfer handguns other than small-calibre handguns. The First

Amendment Act provides for a scheme of compensation for the loss of

valuable guns. The First Amendment Act came into force on 1 July 1997.

A second statute, the Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997 (together

with the First Amendment Act, "the 1997 Amendment Acts") came into

force on 1 March 1998 to extend the scope of the prohibition to include

small-calibre pistols.

The applicants complain that they are no longer able to pursue

their hobby lawfully and have received no compensation for the loss of

their leisure activity. They allege that this is a violation of their

right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1

of Protocol No. 1.

B. Relevant domestic law

The 1997 Amendment Acts amend Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968

thereby extending the prohibition on the possession of guns. Section 5

now provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

"(1) A person commits an offence if, without the authority of

the Defence Council, he has in his possession, or purchases

or acquires, or manufactures, sells or transfers -

...

(aba) any firearm which has a barrel less than

30 centimetres in length or is less than

60 centimetres in length overall, other than an

air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm

designed as signalling apparatus."

Under Section 15 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of

State is given power to arrange for handguns which fall within the

prohibition to be surrendered to the police. Under Sections 16 to 18

of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the Secretary of State is to make schemes

providing for compensation to be paid:

"(i) to the owners of handguns for the value of handguns which

individuals were lawfully entitled to have in their

possession before 16 October 1996 [14 May 1997 for small-

calibre guns] or which individuals had lawfully contracted

before that date to acquire; and

(ii) for ancillary equipment, being equipment designed or

adapted for use with the prohibited firearm and which had

no practicable use in connection with any firearm which was

not prohibited."

In accordance with Section 18 of the 1997 Amendment Acts, the

Secretary of State made schemes which provided for compensation

payments to be made (the "Schemes") and which came into force on 1 July

1997 (1 March 1998 for small-calibre guns). In broad terms the Schemes

provide for compensation to be payable to handgun owners on three

different bases. "Option A" allows for the payment of a flat rate of

£150 for every large calibre handgun (£100 for every small-calibre

handgun) and flat rates for ancillary items. "Option B" allows for the

payment of a value commensurate with the values set out for individual

items set out in annexes to the Schemes. "Option C" provides for a

payment at full market value in respect of handguns and ancillary items

which have been adapted in a manner which increases their value.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they are not entitled to any

compensation under either the 1997 Amendment Acts or the Schemes in

respect of the loss of amenity suffered due to the prohibition of

handguns. (The files do not indicate whether or not the applicants

have received compensation for the guns they had in their possession.)

They allege violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13

of the Convention.

THE LAW

1 The Commission notes that the applications are similar as regards

the subject matter, the complaints and the representatives, and finds

it appropriate to join them.

2 The applicants have lost the ability to pursue shooting as a

leisure activity due to the 1997 Amendment Acts prohibiting the

possession of handguns. They claim that their right to pursue their

hobby falls within the meaning of "possessions" under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and that the interference by the United Kingdom

Government with their leisure pastime constitutes a violation of this

Article.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides, so far as relevant,

as follows:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

to control the use of property in accordance with the general

interest..."

The Commission recalls that the word "possession" has been given

a wide meaning in the context of Article 1 (Art. 1) but in substance

it guarantees the right to property (see Eur. Court HR, Marckx v.

Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 27-28,

para. 63):

"By recognising that everyone has the right to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions, Article 1 (Art. 1) is in substance

guaranteeing the right of property. This is the clear impression

left by the words "possessions" and "use of property" (in French:

"biens", "propriété", "usage des biens"); the "travaux

préparatoires", for their part, confirm this unequivocally: the

drafters continually spoke of "right of property" or "right to

property" to describe the subject-matter of the successive drafts

which were the forerunners of the present Article 1 (Art. 1)."

The right to pursue a hobby cannot be said to constitute a

"possession" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to

the Convention which does not guarantee the right to pursue a

particular leisure activity.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)

of the Convention.

3 The applicants also complain that they do not have an effective

remedy in the United Kingdom to pursue a claim for compensation and

allege a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13).

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides as follows:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The Commission recalls that the guarantees of Article 13

(Art. 13) apply only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable"

(cf. Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment

of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31). In the

present case, the Commission has rejected the substantive claims as

disclosing no appearance of a violation of the Convention. For similar

reasons, they cannot be regarded as "arguable".

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO JOIN APPLICATION NOS. 37664/97, 37665/97, 37974/97,

37979/97, 37982/97 AND 38910/97, and

unanimously,

DECLARES THEM INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber