Why a ‘modest but meaningful’ contribution to conservation can legally trump human rights to property

When a fishing company challenged a government catch ban on sandeel, it argued that it contravened proprietors’ human rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The conclusion the judge came to points to a move towards the environment taking more of a priority in the courts, writes Laura Tainsh.

by Laura Tainsh

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Trouble signing in?

Reset password: Click here

Email: report@ends.co.uk

Call: 020 8267 8120

30-day free trial 

Gain full access and pay nothing for the first 30 days

Sign up


Prices on request

  • Full access to endsreport.com for 12 months
  • Clear and accessible guidance on relevant legislation
  • Integration with ENDS Compliance Manager helping you plan ahead and ensure compliance for your organisation
  • Individual or bespoke multi-user packages available

See all benefits

Need to activate your subscription?
Already a subscriber
If you haven't already, activate your subscription here>>
Company Domain Access
If your company or university has a corporate subscription simply register your email address here to gain access