Fundamentos destacados: 41. En el sistema del Convenio, los derechos deben interpretarse de forma amplia y las excepciones o limitaciones de forma restringida. Esto no es más cierto que en el caso del artículo 8, donde el Tribunal ha sostenido reiteradamente que la noción de vida privada es un concepto amplio (véase, más recientemente, EB c. Francia [GC], n.º 43546/02 , § 43, CEDH 2008 -…, y referencias allí citadas). Abarca, por ejemplo, el derecho a establecer y desarrollar relaciones con otros seres humanos y el derecho a la identidad y al desarrollo personal (Niemietz c. Alemania , sentencia de 16 de diciembre de 1992, Serie A, n.º 251 B, pág. 33, § 29; Bensaid c. Reino Unido , n.º 44599/98 , § 47, CEDH 2001-I). Una interpretación amplia del artículo 8 no significa, sin embargo, que proteja toda actividad que una persona pueda intentar realizar con otros seres humanos a fin de establecer y desarrollar dichas relaciones. Por ejemplo, no protegerá las relaciones interpersonales de un alcance tan amplio e indeterminado que no pueda concebirse un vínculo directo entre la acción o inacción de un Estado y la vida privada de una persona (véase, mutatis mutandis, Botta c. Italia , 24 de febrero de 1998, § 35, Informes de Sentencias y Decisiones 1998 – I). Del mismo modo, no puede decirse que, porque una actividad permite a un individuo establecer y desarrollar relaciones, esté comprendida dentro del ámbito de aplicación del artículo 8, de modo que cualquier regulación de esa actividad equivalga automáticamente a una injerencia en la vida privada de ese individuo.
[…]
43. El Tribunal comparte la opinión de la Cámara de los Lores de que la caza es, por su propia naturaleza, una actividad pública. Se practica al aire libre, en amplias extensiones de terreno. Atrae a una amplia gama de participantes, desde jinetes hasta perros de caza a pie, y muy a menudo, espectadores. A pesar del evidente disfrute y satisfacción personal que los solicitantes derivan de la caza y de las relaciones interpersonales que han desarrollado a través de ella, el Tribunal considera que la caza está demasiado alejada de la autonomía personal de los solicitantes, y que las relaciones interpersonales en las que se basan son demasiado amplias e indeterminadas, como para que las prohibiciones de caza constituyan una injerencia en sus derechos amparados por el Artículo 8.
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16072/06
by Brian Leonard FRIEND
against the United Kingdom
AND
Application no. 27809/08
by the COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE AND OTHERS
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 23 April 2006 and 28 May 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. Introduction
1. These two applications challenge various bans on fox hunting and the hunting of other wild mammals with dogs in the United Kingdom.
The first application has been lodged by Captain Brian Leonard Friend, a British national who was born in 1939 and lives in Axminster, Devon. He is referred to below as the first applicant. His application relates to his challenge to the ban on hunting in Scotland and his challenge, in separate legal proceedings, to a similar ban in England and Wales.
The second application has been lodged by the Countryside Alliance and ten other applicants whose details are set out in the appendix. They are all represented by Clifford Chance LLP. The Countryside Alliance is a non-governmental organisation, which seeks to influence legislation and public policy that has an impact on the countryside, rural people and their activities. At the time of the domestic proceedings set out below, it had around 100,000 ordinary members and 250,000 associate members. The ten other applicants are British nationals who claim to have been affected by the ban in different ways. The Countryside Alliance and the ten other applicants in this application are referred to below as the second applicants. They sought to challenge the ban on hunting in England and Wales only.
B. Hunting in the United Kingdom
2. On the basis of the facts as stated in the domestic proceedings and by the applicants before this Court, the cultural and social background to hunting can be summarised as follows.
Hunting with hounds has a long history in rural Britain. While it encompassed the hunting of deer, hare and mink, before the bans took effect, the principal quarry were foxes. These were traditionally hunted as vermin in order to protect farm stock. Over time, hunting of various quarries evolved such that the activity was organised in a particular area around a “Hunt”. The modern Hunt usually involves a pack of hounds, horseback riders and others who follow the hounds on foot. Any given Hunt now has its own particular customs and practices, including codes, dress, etiquette and hierarchy. The hunting season traditionally runs from early autumn until spring; most Hunts go out twice a week in that period, though larger Hunts may do so more frequently. Within each Hunt there is a Master of Hounds and other positions. Hunts are regulated by the Masters of Hounds Associations. Various charitable, community and social events have grown up around Hunts across the country. Members of the hunting community share the responsibilities for the organisation of the Hunt, for example caring for the hounds of a Hunt; those involved also have a common duty to repair any damage to the land on which the Hunt takes place.
3. In her witness statement before the High Court (see paragraph 6 below), which was characterised by that court as “largely unchallenged factually”, the President of the Countryside Alliance, Baroness Mallalieu, also stated that hunting was supported by the vast majority of farmers and land owners who allowed it to take place on privately owned land. She also averred that, in England and Wales, there were 174 registered fox hunting packs, one fox hunting club, 65 beagle packs, 12 harrier packs, 8 basset packs, 3 deerhound packs, 23 minkhound packs and 6 fell packs (with 2 affiliated fell packs). There were 27 registered Welsh gun packs and 56 registered Welsh hunting packs, although those registered with the Federation of Welsh Packs were only a proportion of the total number of packs in Wales.
4. In the case of Adams v. the Scottish Ministers (see paragraph 32 below), the Inner House of the Court of Session relied on a report prepared by the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which found that ten mounted hunts operated in Scotland and that two hunts based in Northumberland, England, regularly visited the Scottish Borders region.
[Continúa…]
