1 The applicants were Sir William Lithgow; Vosper, Ltd.; The English Electric Company, Ltd.; Vickers, Ltd.; Banstonian Co.; Nathan Shipbuilding & Industrial Holdings, Ltd.; Yarrow PLC; Dowsett Securities, Ltd.; FFI (UK Finance) PLC; The Prudential Assurance Company, Ltd. The Commission consolidated the cases brought by these applicants.
2 213 UNTS 221.
3 Slip op. at 40, para. 114.
4Id., para. 113.
5Id., para. 114.
6Id., para. 115.
7Id. at 41, para. 116. The Court also noted that the travaux préparatoires of the Protocol did not support the applicants’ position. Id. at 42, para. 117.
8 In a concurring opinion, Judge Vilhjalmsson opined that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not imply a right to compensation.
9 Slip op. at 42, para. 120.
10Id. at 43, para. 121. The Court also observed that a state may apply different standards for compensation with respect to nationalization than with respect to other takings of property.
11Id. at 44, para. 122.
12 The Court also rejected the applicants’ assertions of violations of the nondiscrimination norms in Article 14, the due process provision of Article 6, and the effective remedy provision in Article 13,
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.