No hunting on my land, please: but only if my objections are based on conscience

23 October 2012 by

Chabauty v France 4 October 2012 – read judgment

I have posted previously on cases involving the ethical objection of landowners to being forced to allow hunting over their property.

These objections have generally found favour with the Strasbourg Court in the balancing of private and public interests under the right to property.  Mr Chabauty puts the issue into another perspective. He also complained that he was unable to have his land removed from the control of an approved municipal hunters’ association. The difference was – and this proved to be critical to the outcome of the case –  Mr Chabauty is not himself against hunting on ethical grounds. Since no conscience was underlying his Convention complaint, the Court found it not to be disproportionate for the French state to require small landowners to pool their hunting grounds. As such, there had been no violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 or Article 14.

Legal background

Under French law, landowners in “agreed hunting areas”   lose their exclusive hunting rights over their own land but have the right to hunt throughout the area covered by the municipal hunting association, or “ACCA’s” hunting grounds. If a landowner’s property is above a certain acreage he can object to inclusion in such hunting grounds and seek withdrawal, but in the applicant’s case the area of his land was below this threshold.  Mr Chabauty wrote to the association drawing their attention to the Chassagnou case law from Strasbourg on this issue and the fact that the Court had ruled that there was no objective or reasonable justification for obliging landowners, by means of compulsory transfer, to join an ACCA against their wishes. He added that large and small landowners could not be treated differently, because that would run counter to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. When his request was refused and his challenge failed in local courts, he petitioned Strasbourg, complaining that he was unable to have his land removed from the municipal association’s hunting grounds, as he was not against hunting on ethical grounds and the area of his land fell below a certain threshold. He wished to derive benefit from it by leasing it for hunting.

The application was refused.

The Court’s reasoning

The Court distinguished Mr Chabauty’s case from Chassagnou and the Hermann case earlier this year (see my post) on the basis that the solution in both those cases were concerned with the category of landowners opposed to hunting for ethical reasons. The fact that only small landowners were obliged to tolerate the use of their property against their conscience made the law disproportionate and therefore in breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 taken together with Article 14. Therefore, as Mr Chabauty was not opposed to hunting on ethical grounds, no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could be inferred in the present case from the judgment in Chassagnou and Others.

Without the element of ethical objection, the discrimination as between large and small landowners was justified. The Court regarded as convincing the explanations furnished by the French Government to the effect that, in establishing the principle of pooling small hunting grounds within ACCAs, the legislature had sought to remedy the problem of increasing scarcity of game, particularly in regions where properties were very fragmented. It was understandable that the legislature should have deemed it unnecessary to impose the pooling of land on landowners who already had a large area, enabling better management of game stocks.

Comment

One can understand the Court’s position on this set of facts.  To put it bluntly, it didn’t see why the applicant should be allowed to have his cake and eat it. But the judgment doesn’t stand up to much analysis.   What if Mr Chabauty, without his ethical objections to hunting, had wanted not to profit by permitting hunting on his land, but to turn his property into a (profit-making) wildlife sanctuary? Why should personal belief – so difficult to verify anyway – make such a difference to an important challenge to legislation? The Court seeks to counter the illogicalities in its own position by distinguishing this case from Chassagnou, but uses a series of own goals to do so. For a start, it seeks to rely on the change in French law that accommodated the Chassagnou ruling in respect of hunting objectors. Well of course the French legislature had to respond the way it did, otherwise the government would be in breach of international law. Then it refers to the line of conscience cases following Chassagnou – Baudinière and Vauzelle v. France (2007); Piipo v Sweden (2006); Nilssen v Sweden (2008); Schneider v Luxembourg (2007) and Hermann v Germany (2012), asserting that these cases

confirm – even if the Court does not rule on compliance with Article 14 – the importance which this line of case-law attaches to the issue of respect for the choices made on grounds of conscience by landowners opposed to hunting.

But this does not go any distance towards explaining why Mr Chabauty’s position is so different. In Chassagnou the Court found that the legitimate aim advanced by the government for this discriminatory hunting system was full of holes (paras 92-94).  Specifically, the court was not convinced by the Government’s explanation as to how the obligation for small landowners alone to participate in the system addressed the need to pool small plots of land with the aim of promoting the rational management of game stocks. Now, far from questioning the legitimacy of this aim, the Court relies on it as a basis for a new type of ecological legitimacy:

“[i]n thus seeking to control the impact of hunting on the ecological balance, the [French legislation] is aimed at the protection of the natural environment, an aim which, as the Court has held on numerous occasions, is indisputably in the general interest” (para 54)

Of course the Court is free to change its mind on this and other matters (which it frequently does). But a legislative measure whose legitimacy caused considerable doubt in a pro-applicant decision surely cannot be the grounds why an applicant should lose in another case where the facts are virtually indistinguishable.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related reading:

1 comment;


  1. David Williamson says:

    Most of the people hunt the animals just for entertainment. So there will be a rule to stop this so we can save lives of innocent animals. But I am also against those courts that change their mind whenever they want and put this rule for specific peoples.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: