The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
8 July 1986, the following members being present:

                    MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
                        G. SPERDUTI
                        E. BUSUTTIL
                        G. JÖRUNDSSON
                        G. TENEKIDES
                        S. TRECHSEL
                        B. KIERNAN
                        A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                        A. WEITZEL
                        J.C. SOYER
                        H.G. SCHERMERS
                        H. DANELIUS
                        G. BATLINER
                        J. CAMPINOS
                        H. VANDENBERGHE
                   Mrs  G.H. THUNE

                    Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission


Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 February 1986 by
E. and B.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 December
1985 under file No. 11930/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are of British nationality, born in 1929 and 1937
respectively, and are resident in Helston, Cornwall.  The facts as
submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.

In 1973 the applicants bought a small dairy farm of 90 acres, where
they produced milk with relative success.  In late 1981 however the
applicants decided to give up dairying for a period, because of
Government pressure and the need to reinvest capital to refurbish the
farm.  The Ministry advised the applicants not to consider any
outgoing scheme if they wished to leave dairying on a temporary basis
since they would not receive adequate compensation and they would be
excluded from returning to milk production for four to five years. The
applicants were not informed of the EEC milk regulations which were
soon to be adopted.

The applicants changed to raising beef.  They received no compensation
for giving up dairy production.  By letter of 22 February 1982, they
were informed that they had been removed from the register of dairy
farmers.

The applicants found they were unable to raise enough stock to make
this type of farming viable.  They wished to return to dairying and
applied for a milk quota which is necessary for milk production under
the new EEC regulations as applied in the United Kingdom by the Dairy
Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 (SI No. 1047).

They were informed by letter of 16 August 1984 from the Milk Marketing
Board that a quota could only be issued to farmers producing milk
during the reference period i.e. 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983
providing milk was also being produced on 2 April 1984.

The applicants applied to the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal, an
independent body with the specific responsibility of considering
special and exceptional hardship applications.

By a decision dated 27 June 1985, the tribunal rejected the claim on
the grounds that the registration of dairy produced quotas under Dairy
Produce Quotas Regulations 1984 is confined to producers and intending
producers of milk in occupation of holdings before 31 March 1985 and
producing, selling or delivering dairy produce therefrom.  The
applicants were informed that the regulations made no provision for
review of the tribunal's decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they have been refused a milk quota and
have therefore been prevented from carrying out the activity of dairy
farming on their farm.  This is the only activity which would be
viable, beef production having proved impractical and any development
for the purposes of tourism being restricted by the designation of the
area as one of "outstanding natural beauty".  The dairy machinery
which was kept for milk production is now worthless and the farm has
become economically unviable.

The applicants invoke Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

THE LAW

The applicants complain they have been prevented from carrying out
dairy farming on their land.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions.  No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided
for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the
right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control
the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to
secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

With regard to the present complaint, the Commission observes that the
applicants have not been deprived of any property by the refusal of
the United Kingdom authorities to allocate a milk quota to them.
Accordingly the Commission finds that there cannot be said to be any
deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence
of the first paragraph of Article 1 (P1-1).

The Commission furthermore finds that although the restrictions on the
applicants' use of their land as a dairy farm may be considered as an
interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions, this interference is nevertheless justified under the
second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as being lawful
restrictions for the control of the use of property in accordance with
the general interest in the regulation of milk production.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For this reason, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission       Acting President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (J.A. FROWEIN)