The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Hirtu and others v. France (no. 24720/13).
The Press Release, issued on May 14 2020, reads:
"The case concerned the clearance of an unauthorised encampment where the applicants, who are of Roma origin, had been living for six months.
The Court observed first of all that the circumstances of their forcible eviction and their subsequent living conditions did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
The authorities had been entitled in principle to evict the applicants, who had been unlawfully occupying municipal land and could not claim to have a legitimate expectation of remaining there.
Nevertheless, with regard to the manner of the applicants’ eviction, the Court noted that the measure had not been based on a judicial decision but on the procedure for issuing formal notice under section 9 of the Law of 5 July 2000. The decision to use that procedure had entailed a number of consequences. Owing to the short time between the issuing of the prefect’s order and its implementation, no account had been taken of the repercussions of the eviction or the applicants’ particular circumstances. Furthermore, because of the procedure that had been applied, the remedy provided for by domestic law had come into play after the decision had been taken by the administrative authorities and had been ineffective in the present case.
The Court emphasised that the fact that the applicants belonged to an underprivileged social group, and their particular needs on that account, had to be taken into consideration in the proportionality assessment that the national authorities were under a duty to undertake. As that had not been done in the present case, the Court held that the manner of the applicants’ eviction had breached their right to respect for their private and family life.
Lastly, the Court noted that that there had been no judicial examination at first instance of the applicants’ arguments under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, either in proceedings on the merits or under the urgent procedure, in breach of the requirements of Article 13."
You can access the judgement in full here.
