Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:17:20.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 425 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.

4 Id., para. 113.

5 Id., para. 114.

6 Id., para. 115.

7 Id. 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.

10 Id. 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.

11 Id. 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,