Vols, M; Tassenaar, P G and Jacobs, J P A M (2015) Anti-social behaviour and European protection against eviction. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 7(2), pp. 148-161. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the implementation of the minimum level of protection against the loss of the home that arises from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in The Netherlands. The paper focuses on anti-social behaviour-related cases in which the landlord requests the court to issue an eviction order. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a statistical analysis of nearly 250 judgements concerning housing-related anti-social behaviour. Findings – A significant difference is found in the court’s attitude against drug-related anti-social behaviour and other types of nuisance. Moreover, it is found that in two-thirds of the cases, the tenant advanced a proportionality defence. Although the European Court stresses the need of a proportionality check, the Dutch courts ignore the tenant’s proportionality defence in 10 per cent of the cases and issue an eviction order in the majority of all cases. Advancing a proportionality defence does not result in any difference for the court decision. Originality/value – The paper presents original data on the legal protection against eviction in cases concerning anti-social behaviour. This is the first study that analyses the approach towards housing-related anti-social behaviour in the context of the European minimum level of protection. Whilst centred on legislation and procedures in The Netherlands, its findings and discussion are relevant in other jurisdictions facing similar issues.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Netherlands; anti-social behaviour; Article 8; eviction; proportionality defence; tenancy law |
| Index terms: | tenant, Netherlands, jurisdiction, proportionality, legislation, nuisance, housing, eviction, methodology, human rights, statistical analysis, tenancy, landlord, implementation, anti-social behaviour |
| Subjects: | sociology, liability law, regulatory law, research methods, Geography, data science, contractual arrangements, legal systems, property law, construction type, criminal law, practitioner |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here