Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage;

               Considering that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

               Wishing to follow-up the Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the member States of the Council of Europe adopted in Vienna on 9October1993;

               Being resolved to protect within their respective territories the existence of national minorities;

               Considering that the upheavals of European history have shown that the protection of national minorities is essential to stability, democratic security and peace in this continent;

               Considering that a pluralist and genuinely democratic society should not only respect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of each person belonging to a national minority, but also create appropriate conditions enabling them to express, preserve and develop this identity;

               Considering that the creation of a climate of tolerance and dialogue is necessary to enable cultural diversity to be a source and a factor, not of division, but of enrichment for each society;

              Considering that the realisation of a tolerant and prosperous Europe does not depend solely on co-operation between States but also requires transfrontier co-operation between local and regional authorities without prejudice to the constitution and territorial integrity of each State;

                   Having regard to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto;

               Having regard to the commitments concerning the protection of national minorities in United Nations conventions and declarations and in the documents of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, particularly the Copenhagen Document of 29June1990;

               Being resolved to define the principles to be respected and the obligations which flow from them, in order to ensure, in the member States and such other States as may become Parties to the present instrument, the effective protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities, within the rule of law, respecting the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of states;

               Being determined to implement the principles set out in this framework Convention through national legislation and appropriate governmental policies, 

               Have agreed as follows:

Section I

       Article 1

               The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights, and as such falls within the scope of international co-operation. 

       Article 2

               The provisions of this framework Convention shall be applied in good faith, in a spirit of understanding and tolerance and in conformity with the principles of good neighbourliness, friendly relations and co-operation between States.

       Article 3

       1     Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice.

       2     Persons belonging to national minorities may exercise the rights and enjoy the freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention individually as well as in community with others.

Section II

Article 4

       1     The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.

       2     The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.

       3     The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination.

Article 5

       1     The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage.

       2     Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation.

Article 6

       1     The Parties shall encourage a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue and take effective measures to promote mutual respect and understanding and co-operation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of those persons' ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, in particular in the fields of education, culture and the media.

       2     The Parties undertake to take appropriate measures to protect persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination, hostility or violence as a result of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity.

Article 7

              The Parties shall ensure respect for the right of every person belonging to a national minority to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

APPENDIX 3 - Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[435]

One of the recognised shortcomings of the ECHR is that Article 14, prohibiting discrimination, can only be invoked in conjunction with one of the Convention’s other substantive rights.  It is also recognised that racial discrimination and violence are spreading within Europe and that Article 14 of the Convention offers little protection from this form of discrimination.[436]

To remedy this, on 4 November 2000, Protocol No.12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was opened for signature by the Member States of the Council of Europe.  Several States that did not vote for adoption of the Protocol have not signed, including the United Kingdom.

Protocol No.12 was drafted ‘Having regard to the fundamental principle according to which all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal

protection of the law;’ [437] and represents a much broader scope of protection than that provided by Article 14 of the ECHR.

The Council of Europe Explanatory Report on Protocol No.12 details the additional scope of this Protocol:

22.     In particular, the additional scope of protection under Article 1 concerns cases where a person is discriminated against:

i.                    in the enjoyment of any right specifically granted to an individual under national law;

ii.                  in the enjoyment of a right which may be inferred from a clear obligation of a public authority under national law, that is, where a public authority is under an obligation under national law to behave in a particular manner;

iii.                by a public authority in the exercise of discretionary power (for example, granting certain subsidies);

iv.                by any other act or omission by a public authority (for example, the behaviour of law enforcement officers when controlling a riot).[438]

Protocol No.12 creates an obligation on Parties to the Protocol not to discriminate against individuals.  The term ‘public authority’ in article 1 (2)[439] of the Protocol is intended to have the same meaning as in Articles 8(2) and 10(1) of the Convention.

The United Kingdom has not become a signatory to Protocol No.12 as it has objections to the framing of the Protocol.  Some of these objections are indicated in the following House of Lords written answer given by:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton):  The Government are in principle in favour of extending Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights to provide a free-standing right against discrimination.  But we consider the text of Protocol 12 is too general and open ended.  In particular, it does not make clear whether “rights set forth by law” include international as well as national law; and it does not follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in allowing objective and reasonably justified distinctions.[440]

The main obstacles to ratification by the United Kingdom appear to be:

1.      The ‘general and open-ended’ framing of the Protocol.

2.      The reference to ‘rights set forth by law’ [441] and whether this refers to international law.

3.      The lack of provision of ‘positive measures’.

4.      The Protocol ‘does not follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights’.

It can be argued that these perceived obstacles to ratification are misinterpreted by the Government or indeed non-existent, when examined fully.

Examination of the framework of Article 1 of Protocol 12 confirms that it widens the scope of protection from discrimination beyond the rights contained within the Convention in party States, however this is limited to those ‘rights set forth by law’.  States would not be obliged to widen their obligations beyond current law applicable to the particular State.  This, it is argued in this thesis, is not open-ended legislation.

The reference to ‘rights set forth by law’, also refers to international law however it is recognised the term law may include international law outwith the jurisdiction of the ECtHR:

‘The first paragraph of Article 1 refers to "any right set forth by law"…  The word "law" may also cover international law, but this does not mean that this provision entails jurisdiction for the European Court of Human Rights to examine compliance with rules of law in other international instruments.’ [442]

The United Kingdom ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 20 August 1976, which provides almost identical, although not enforceable, protection from discrimination to that provided by Protocol 12. 

Within this treaty Article 26 states:

‘All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.’

The United Kingdom has not however recognised the right to individual petition under the optional Protocol to the Covenant, preventing the ICCPR being pleaded in domestic courts.  The ICCPR therefore does not provide effective remedies where discrimination has occurred in the United Kingdom.  If the United Kingdom violates the ICCPR the UN Human Rights Committee issues communications ‘advising’ and ‘encouraging’ remedies for the particular issue that has been examined.  The ICCPR does offer significant protection against discrimination when applicable in domestic law and has done so in Canada.  In the case of Lovelace v. Canada [443], examining the rights of a native Indian woman who lost the right to remain on a reserve with her tribe following marriage to a non-Indian man in accordance with the Indian Act, the Human Rights Committee held that the Indian Act was discriminatory towards the applicant and there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 27 of ICCPR, which states:

‘In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist,   persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in  community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own  language.’

The judgement also comments on the proportionality of the circumstances the applicant found herself in:

‘… Whatever may be the merits of the Indian Act in other respects, it does   not seem to the committee that to deny Sandra Lovelace the right to reside  on the reserve is reasonable, or necessary to preserve the identity of the tribe. The Committee therefore concludes that to prevent her recognition as belonging to the band is an unjustifiable denial of her rights…’ [444]

The protection offered from discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR is very similar to that contained in Article 1 of Protocol No.12, with the exception that Article 1 provides additional protection on the grounds of ‘association with a national minority’.

The United Kingdom government’s perception of the lack of ‘provision of positive measures’ as an obstacle to ratification is incorrect.  Examination of the Explanatory Report reveals that the Protocol was not intended to create general positive obligations:

‘The Article is not intended to impose a general positive obligation on the Parties to take measures to prevent or remedy all instances of discrimination in relations between private persons. An additional protocol to the Convention, which typically contains justiciable individual rights formulated in concise provisions, would not be a

suitable instrument for defining the various elements of such a wide-ranging obligation of a programmatic character….’ [445]

The lack of positive obligations, it is suggested, is not a reasonable basis on which to object to the introduction of Protocol 12 into United Kingdom law.  There are many positive obligations on States laid down in various international treaties, which individual States have ratified.  It is suggested, if Protocol 12 had created further positive obligations, it may have limited or derogated from, individual States existing international treaty obligations.

The argument that the Protocol ‘does not follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights’ is also ill founded. The European Court of Human Rights has limited competence as detailed in Article 19 of the Convention.[446] 

Whilst the framework of Protocol No.12 is ambiguous regarding international treaties it is argued that were the European Court of Human Rights to examine obligations under international treaties it would be acting outwith its competency.

There is a very strong argument for the United Kingdom to ratify Protocol No.12, and it is suggested the arguments against are weak.  To do so would reinforce the United Kingdom’s commitment to human rights and to tackling discrimination in particular.

Adoption of Protocol No.12 would effectively introduce substitute legislation for Article 26 of the ICCPR into domestic law, permitting individuals to progress actions in domestic courts, and would substantially increase the development of and protection available for Gypsy Travellers’ rights, particularly regarding public authority functions.[447]

APPENDIX 4 – The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

The Organisation is a primary instrument in early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation in its area.  All members have equal standing in the Organisation, which amongst other areas regarding security, is concerned with the protection of human rights and national minorities.

‘The OSCE approach to security is comprehensive and co-operative:

comprehensive in dealing with a wide range of security-related issues including arms control, preventive diplomacy, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, democratisation, election monitoring and economic and environmental security; co-operative in the sense that all OSCE participating States have equal status, and decisions are based on consensus.’ [448]

Within the OSCE the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has responsibility for human rights issues and is the main institution within the OSCE with responsibility for Gypsy Traveller issues, serving as the contact point for Roma and Sinti[449] issues and promoting the full integration of Roma and Sinti groups into the societies in which they live. 

The OSCE and ODIHR are effectively advisory and monitoring institutions that engage in initiatives to progress and develop human rights issues in their area of

responsibility.  The United Kingdom has been a participating State in the OSCE since 1973.

The OSCE has produced several texts regarding Roma and Sinti issues, the latest of which presents an action plan to progress these issues, OSCE, Permanent Council Decision No. 566.[450]

a)  Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Permanent Council,

     Decision No. 566

OSCE, Permanent Council, Decision No. 566, relates to an ‘Action Plan on improving the situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area’. This text states:

1.      The Action Plan is intended to reinforce the efforts of the participating States and relevant OSCE institutions and structures aimed at ensuring that Roma and Sinti people are able to play a full and equal part in our societies, and at eradicating discrimination against them.

2.      The Action Plan relies on the framework of international and regional human rights law, existing OSCE commitments and examples of best practices from countries throughout Europe, where there are in place, and aims at fostering such practices elsewhere.  The special measures[451] foreseen by the Action Plans with a view to improving the situation of Roma and Sinti people are based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.[452]

The Decision contains, at III Combating racism and discrimination, the following recommended action by participating States:

8.      Adopt and implement effective anti-discrimination legislation to combat racial and ethnic discrimination in all fields, including, inter alia, access to housing, citizenship and residence, education, employment, health and social services.  Involve Roma and Sinti representatives in the design, implementation and evaluation processes.

9.  The anti-discrimination legislation should ensure:

-          Prohibition of both direct and indirect racial discrimination;

-          Imposition of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for discriminatory acts or practices;

-          Imposition of heavier sentences for racially motivated crimes by both private individuals and public officials;

-          Equal access to effective remedies (judicial, administrative, conciliation or mediation procedures).

10.  It should be ensured that national legislation prohibits all kinds of

             discriminatory acts and that all cases of suspected discrimination

            are thoroughly and objectively investigated.

and;

12.  Develop, where necessary, comprehensive national strategies or action plans to improve the situation of Roma and Sinti people, which include specific measures to tackle discrimination in all fields of life.

The Action Plan goes beyond race and discrimination issues, making other recommendations regarding Policing, the Media, Socio-economic issues, Education and Political issues which, when implemented, will progress the Gypsy Traveller community’s living conditions, development and rights. 

Permanent Council, Decision No. 566, is an action plan for all participant States, including the United Kingdom, which will progress the situation of Roma and Sinti in these States when implemented.  Although there is no enforcement mechanism for the action plan, Decision No. 566 should inform domestic Courts and the ECtHR, regarding considerations on ‘proportionality’ and the States ‘margin of appreciation’, in relevant cases regarding Gypsy Traveller rights. 

Whilst many parts of the Action Plan regarding anti-discrimination issues have been complied with by developments in race relations legislation in the United Kingdom, there is still difficulty in engaging with, and involving, Gypsy Travellers in local policies and processes.  This remains a challenge, which current strategies and policies are attempting to overcome.[453]

APPENDIX 5– United Kingdom Legislation

CRIMINAL JUSTICE and PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 (Extracts)

Powers to remove trespassers on land

Section 61 states the following:

S. 61 – (1)If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and –

(a)    that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or

(b)that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land,

he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.

(2)Where the persons in question are reasonably believed by the senior police officer to be persons who were not originally trespassers but have become trespassers on the land, the officer must reasonably believe that the other conditions specified in subsection (1) are satisfied after those persons became trespassers before he can exercise the power conferred by that subsection.

(3)A direction under subsection (1) above, if not communicated to the persons referred to in subsection (1) by the police officer giving the direction, may be communicated to them by any constable at the scene.

(4)If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given which applies to him -

(a)  fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or

(b)   having left again enters the land as a trespasser within the period of three

      months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,

he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,

or both.

(4A) Where, as respects Scotland, the reason why these persons have become trespassers is that they have ceased to be entitled to exercise access rights by virtue of-

(a) their having formed the common purpose mentioned in subsection (1) 

     above; or

(b) one or more of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that

      subsection having been satisfied,

the circumstances constituting that reason shall be treated, for the purposes of subsection (4) above, as having also occurred after these persons became trespassers.

(4B) In subsection (4A) above "access rights" has the meaning given by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 2).

(5)A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.

(6)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show - 

(a)    that he was not trespassing on the land, or

(b)   that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable or, as the case may be, for again entering the land as a trespasser.

(7)In its application in England and Wales to common land this section has effect as if in the preceding subsections of it -

(a)    references to trespassing or trespassers were references to acts and persons doing acts which constitute either a trespass as against the occupier or an infringement of the commoners' rights; and

(b)   references to "the occupier" included the commoners or any of them or, in the case of common land to which the public has access, the local authority as well as any commoner.

(8)Subsection (7) above does not -

(a)    require action by more than one occupier; or

(b)   constitute persons trespassers as against any commoner or the local authority if they are permitted to be there by the other occupier.

(9)In this section -

"common land" means common land as defined in section 22 of the [1965 c.64.] Commons Registration Act 1965;

"commoner" means a person with rights of common as defined in section 22 of the [1965 c.64.] Commons Registration Act 1965;

"land" does not include -

(a)buildings other than -

(i)agricultural buildings within the meaning of, in England and Wales, paragraphs 3 to 8 of Schedule 5 to the [1988 c. 41.] Local Government Finance Act 1988 or, in Scotland, section 7(2) of the [1956 c.60.] Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, or

(ii)scheduled monuments within the meaning of the [1979 c.46.] Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;

            (b) land forming part of –

(i)a highway unless it falls within the classifications in section 54 of the [1981 c.69.] Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path) or is a cycle track under the [1980 c.66.] Highways Act 1980 or the [1984 c.38.] Cycle Tracks Act 1984; or

(ii)a road within the meaning of the [1984 c.54.] Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 unless it falls within the definitions in section 151(2)(a)(ii) or (b) (footpaths and cycle tracks) of that Act or is a bridleway within the meaning of section 47 of the [1967 c.86.] Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967;

"the local authority", in relation to common land, means any local authority which has powers in relation to the land under section 9 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;

"occupier" (and in subsection (8) "the other occupier") means –

(a)    in England and Wales, the person entitled to possession of the land by virtue of an estate or interest held by him; and

(b)   in Scotland, the person lawfully entitled to natural possession of the land;

"property", in relation to damage to property on land, means -

(a)    in England and Wales, property within the meaning of section 10(1) of the [1971 c.48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971; and

(b)in Scotland, either -

(i)  heritable property other than land; or

(ii)corporeal moveable property,

and "damage" includes the deposit of any substance capable of polluting the land;

"trespass" means, in the application of this section -

(a)  in England and Wales, subject to the extensions effected by subsection

(7) above, trespass as against the occupier of the land;

(b)   in Scotland, entering, or as the case may be remaining on, land without lawful authority and without the occupier's consent; and

"trespassing" and "trespasser" shall be construed accordingly;

"vehicle" includes -

(a)    any vehicle, whether or not it is in a fit state for use on roads, and includes any chassis or body, with or without wheels, appearing to have formed part of such a vehicle, and any load carried by, and anything attached to, such a vehicle; and

(b)a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the [1960 c.62.] Caravan Sites

      and Control of Development Act 1960;

and a person may be regarded for the purposes of this section as having a purpose of residing in a place notwithstanding that he has a home elsewhere.  

Supplementary powers of seizure

Section 62 states the following:

S. 62  - (1)If a direction has been given under section 61 and a constable reasonably suspects that any person to whom the direction applies has, without reasonable excuse-

(a)    failed to remove any vehicle on the land which appears to the constable to belong to him or to be in his possession or under his control; or

(b)entered the land as a trespasser with a vehicle within the period of three

       months beginning with the day on which the direction was given, the

       constable may seize and remove that vehicle.

(2)In this section, "trespasser" and "vehicle" have the same meaning as in section 61.

Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land.

Section 77 states the following:

77.—(1)If it appears to a local authority that persons are for the time being residing in a vehicle or vehicles within that authority's area-

(a)on any land forming part of a highway;

(b)   on any other unoccupied land; or

(c)    on any occupied land without the consent of the occupier,

the authority may give a direction that those persons and any others with them are to leave the land and remove the vehicle or vehicles and any other property they have with them on the land.

(2)Notice of a direction under subsection (1) must be served on the persons to whom the direction applies, but it shall be sufficient for this purpose for the direction to specify the land and (except where the direction applies to only one person) to be addressed to all occupants of the vehicles on the land, without naming them.

(3)If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given which applies to him—

(a)fails, as soon as practicable, to leave the land or remove from the land any vehicle or other property which is the subject of the direction, or

(b)having removed any such vehicle or property again enters the land with

within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,

he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4)A direction under subsection (1) operates to require persons who re-enter the land within the said period with vehicles or other property to leave and remove the vehicles or other property as it operates in relation to the persons and vehicles or other property on the land when the direction was given.

(5)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that his failure to leave or to remove the vehicle or other property as soon as practicable or his re-entry with a vehicle was due to illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency.
(6)In this section-

"land" means land in the open air;

"local authority" means—

(a)in Greater London, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;

(b)in England outside Greater London, a county council, a district council or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(c)in Wales, a county council or a county borough council;

"occupier" person entitled to possession of the land by virtue of an estate or interest held by him;

"vehicle" includes-

(a)any vehicle, whether or not it is in a fit state for use on roads, and includes any body, with or without wheels, appearing to have formed part of such a vehicle, and any load carried by, and anything attached to, such a vehicle; and

(b)a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the [1960 c.62.] Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;

and a person may be regarded for the purposes of this section as residing on any land notwithstanding that he has a home elsewhere.

(7)Until 1st April 1996, in this section "local authority" means, in Wales, a county council or a district council.

Orders for removal of persons and their vehicles unlawfully on land.

Section 78 states the following:

78.- (1)A magistrates' court may, on a complaint made by a local authority, if satisfied that persons and vehicles in which they are residing are present on land within that authority's area in contravention of a direction given under section 77, make an order requiring the removal of any vehicle or other property which is so present on the land and any person residing in it.

(2)An order under this section may authorise the local authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that the order is complied with and, in particular, may authorise the authority, by its officers and servants-

(a)to enter upon the land specified in the order; and

(b)to take, in relation to any vehicle or property to be removed in pursuance of the order, such steps for securing entry and rendering it suitable for removal as may be so specified.

(3)The local authority shall not enter upon any occupied land unless they have given to the owner and occupier at least 24 hours notice of their intention to do so, or unless after reasonable inquiries they are unable to ascertain their names and addresses.

(4)A person who wilfully obstructs any person in the exercise of any power conferred on him by an order under this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(5)Where a complaint is made under this section, a summons issued by the court requiring the person or persons to whom it is directed to appear before the court to answer to the complaint may be directed-

(a)to the occupant of a particular vehicle on the land in question; or

(b)to all occupants of vehicles on the land in question, without naming him or them.

(6)Section 55(2) of the [1980 c.43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (warrant for arrest of defendant failing to appear) does not apply to proceedings on a complaint made under this section.

(7)Section 77(6) of this Act applies also for the interpretation of this section.

Table of Cases + Page

Anderson v Scottish Ministers, 2002 SC (PC) 63. 161

Beard v UK, Application No. 24882/94. 70

Belgian Linguistics Case (No. 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252. 56, 96

Boyce v British Airways, Unreported. EAT 385/97. 36, 41

Buckley v United Kingdom, Application No. 20348/92, 58, 60, 64, 65, 79, 82 - 86,

(1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 149, 166, 189, 198

Chapman v United Kingdom, Application No. 27238/95. 69, 70, 76, 78, 81 - 88,  94, 95, 97, 111, 114, 149, 150,189, 191, 198, 202, 204

Chelmsford Borough Council v. the First Secretary of State, Draper, 67 (2003) EWHC 2978 (Admin).

Clarke v. Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the 167, 175, Regions, (2001) EWHC Admin 800 (9th October, 2001). 180, 181, 198,  199, 204

Commission for Racial Equality v. Dutton, (1989) 2 WLR 17 35, 41,185

Connors v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 66746/01. 58, 84 – 87, 149, 189

Coster v UK, Application No. 24876/94. 69, 70, 97

Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd (1992) QB 770 56

Flynn v HM Advocate, 2004 SLT 863. 162

Friedrich Kremzow v Republik Österreich, 135 Case 299/95 (1997) ECR 2629.

Fuller & Others v. CC of Dorset Police, (2001) EWHC Admin 1057 172, 174 (12^th December, 2001).

Grant v South-West Trains Ltd, Case C-249/96 (1998) ECR 00621. 136

Gypsy Council and Others v UK, Application 66336/01 89

Hambleton District Council v. Bird, (1995) 3 PLR 8. 63, 169

Hipperson and Others v. Newbury District E.R.O. (1985) 1 QB 1060. 60
 

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr-und Vorratstelle, 134 Case 11/70 (1970) 1125.

James and others v the United Kingdom, (1986) 8 EHRR 123. 92, 95, 190

Jane Smith v UK, Application No. 25154/94. 69, 97

Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC Case 222/84 (1986) ECR 1651. 135

King v Great Britain - China Centre (1991) IRLR 513. 145

King-Ansell v Police, (1979) 2 NZLR 531. 41

Lee v UK, Application No. 25289/94. 69, 70, 97

Lovelace v. Canada, No. 488/1992. 223

Mandla v Dowell-Lee, (1983) 1 All ER 1062. 34, 38, 41, 49,185

Marckx v. Belgium, (1979) 2 EHRR 330. 91

Meer v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (1988) IRLR 399 31

Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 43577/98 141

Napier v The Scottish Ministers, 2004 SLT 555. 162

National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium, Application No. 4464/70. 100

Nold v Commission, Case 4/73 (1974) 491. 134

Northern Joint Police Board v Power, (1997) IRLR 610. 40 - 43, 186

O’Leary v Allied Domecq, Case No. CL 950275-79 29(Unreported). 37, 185

Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 88 Case 64/1991/316/387-388.

Perera v. Civil service Commission (No.2) (1983) ICR 428 31

Plattform “Arzte fur das Leben” v. Austria A.139 (1988), 88 (1991) 13 EHRR 204.

Prague Airport v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department 38

and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees [2003] EWCA Civ 666.

R. v. Brighton and Hove BC Ex p. Marmont, 1998 EWHC Admin 3 167, 175 (12 January 1998).

R. v. Lincolnshire CC Ex p. Atkinson, (QBD) (1996) 8 Admin. L. R. 529. 175, 198, 204

R.(Exp. Price) v. Carmarthenshire County Council, 180, 199, 200

High Court QBD (Admin Ct) Case No. CO/3331/02.

R. v. Wealden DC Ex p. Wales, (1996) 160 JP 582. 166,175, 198, 204

Regina v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another 38, 185

(Respondents) ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and

others (Appellants) [2004] UKHL 55.

South Buckinghamshire D.C. v Porter and Another, 169, 175, 198, 199

(2001) EWCA Civ 1549 (12^th October, 2001).

South Buckinghamshire District Council v. 88,172

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government

and the Regions, (2003) EWHC Civ 687.

South Bucks District Council and another (Respondents) v. 172

Porter (FC) Appellant, (2004) UKHL 33.

Sporrong and Löennroth v Sweden, (1982) 5 EHRR 35. 91, 95

Stork v High Authority, Case 1/58 (1959) 17. 134

T, Petitioner 1997 SLT 724 56

Thlimmenos v. Greece, Application no. 34369/97. 64, 66, 68, 69, 85, 75 - 79 87, 190, 192, 202

Varey v. UK, Application No. 26662/95. 58, 82, 85

Wrexham C. B. v The National Assembly of Wales and Berry, 26

(2003) EWCA Civ 835.

Zafar v Glasgow City Council (1998) IRLR 2001. 145, 146

Table of Legislation

United Kingdom

Caravan Sites Act 1968, as amended by The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Housing Act 1996.

Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (as amended by section 3, Housing (Scotland) Act 2001).

Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.

Human Rights Act 1998.

Mental Health Public Safety and Appeals (Scotland) Act 1999.

Race Relations Act 1976.

Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003.

Race Relations Act 1976 as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) (No 2) Authorisation 2001.

Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

Scotland Act 1998.

Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000

Canada

Indian Act

Republic of Ireland

Equal Status Act 2000.

Table of Treaties

Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, (2003).

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, (1950).

European Social Charter, (1961).

European Social Charter (Revised), (1996).

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, (1995).

Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No.11, (1952).

Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2000).

Treaty of Amsterdam (1997).

Treaty establishing the European Community(2002).

Treaty on European Union (1992).

Table of Additional Materials

United Kingdom

Comments of the Government of the United Kingdom on the Opinion of the Advisory Committee.

Committee on the Report on the Implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in the United Kingdom.

The Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee. 1^st Report 2001 – Inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and Public Sector Policies Vol.1.

The Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee. 1^st Report 2001 - Inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and Public Sector Policies Vol. 2.

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report (1999).

European

Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – Opinion on the United Kingdom.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Council Directive 2000/43/EC.

Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution. Res (2002)8.

Council of Europe – Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

The Council of Europe Explanatory Report on Protocol No.12.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1201 (1993).

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance – Recommendation No.3.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Permanent Council Decision No. 566.

Recommendation 1201 (1993) of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Recommendation 1203 (1993) of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Recommendation 1492 (2001) of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Recommendation 1557 (2002) of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Recommendation 1623 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly.

United Nations

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.