Adverse possession and Article 1 of the European Convention

Sukhninder Panesar, Jane Wood

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    242 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    In the post-human rights era the question has arisen on several occasions as to whether the automatic and arbitrary termination of the registered owner’s title through the common law and statutory principles governing adverse possession of land is contrary to the Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The matter fell to be decided in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom ([2005] 3 EGLR 1) where the European Court of Human Rights held that the automatic termination of a registered owners title after 12 years possession was indeed a violation of Article 1, Protocol 1. More recently, the decision of the European Court has been overturned by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber has held that a squatters’ right to another persons land are not disproportionate (J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom, The Times, October 1st 2007). This short article examines the decision of the Grand Chamber.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)77-88
    JournalLiverpool Law Review
    Volume30
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2009

    Fingerprint

    European Convention
    possession
    chamber
    human rights
    squatter
    common law
    human being

    Bibliographical note

    The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com

    Keywords

    • adverse possession
    • human rights
    • Article 1 of the European Convention
    • squatters rights
    • limitation and proportionality

    Cite this

    Adverse possession and Article 1 of the European Convention. / Panesar, Sukhninder; Wood, Jane.

    In: Liverpool Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, 04.2009, p. 77-88.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Panesar, Sukhninder ; Wood, Jane. / Adverse possession and Article 1 of the European Convention. In: Liverpool Law Review. 2009 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 77-88.
    @article{a35f31c6cb6a445e88cefb38279ce63d,
    title = "Adverse possession and Article 1 of the European Convention",
    abstract = "In the post-human rights era the question has arisen on several occasions as to whether the automatic and arbitrary termination of the registered owner’s title through the common law and statutory principles governing adverse possession of land is contrary to the Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The matter fell to be decided in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom ([2005] 3 EGLR 1) where the European Court of Human Rights held that the automatic termination of a registered owners title after 12 years possession was indeed a violation of Article 1, Protocol 1. More recently, the decision of the European Court has been overturned by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber has held that a squatters’ right to another persons land are not disproportionate (J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom, The Times, October 1st 2007). This short article examines the decision of the Grand Chamber.",
    keywords = "adverse possession, human rights, Article 1 of the European Convention, squatters rights, limitation and proportionality",
    author = "Sukhninder Panesar and Jane Wood",
    note = "The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com",
    year = "2009",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1007/s10991-009-9050-4",
    language = "English",
    volume = "30",
    pages = "77--88",
    journal = "Liverpool Law Review",
    issn = "0144-932X",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Adverse possession and Article 1 of the European Convention

    AU - Panesar, Sukhninder

    AU - Wood, Jane

    N1 - The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com

    PY - 2009/4

    Y1 - 2009/4

    N2 - In the post-human rights era the question has arisen on several occasions as to whether the automatic and arbitrary termination of the registered owner’s title through the common law and statutory principles governing adverse possession of land is contrary to the Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The matter fell to be decided in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom ([2005] 3 EGLR 1) where the European Court of Human Rights held that the automatic termination of a registered owners title after 12 years possession was indeed a violation of Article 1, Protocol 1. More recently, the decision of the European Court has been overturned by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber has held that a squatters’ right to another persons land are not disproportionate (J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom, The Times, October 1st 2007). This short article examines the decision of the Grand Chamber.

    AB - In the post-human rights era the question has arisen on several occasions as to whether the automatic and arbitrary termination of the registered owner’s title through the common law and statutory principles governing adverse possession of land is contrary to the Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The matter fell to be decided in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom ([2005] 3 EGLR 1) where the European Court of Human Rights held that the automatic termination of a registered owners title after 12 years possession was indeed a violation of Article 1, Protocol 1. More recently, the decision of the European Court has been overturned by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber has held that a squatters’ right to another persons land are not disproportionate (J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom, The Times, October 1st 2007). This short article examines the decision of the Grand Chamber.

    KW - adverse possession

    KW - human rights

    KW - Article 1 of the European Convention

    KW - squatters rights

    KW - limitation and proportionality

    U2 - 10.1007/s10991-009-9050-4

    DO - 10.1007/s10991-009-9050-4

    M3 - Article

    VL - 30

    SP - 77

    EP - 88

    JO - Liverpool Law Review

    JF - Liverpool Law Review

    SN - 0144-932X

    IS - 1

    ER -