SCOTTS' OF GREENOCK (ESTD. 1711) LTD AND LITHGOWS LIMITED (FORMERLY LITHGOWS HOLDINGS LIMITED) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 9599/81 • ECHR ID: 001-45413
Document date: March 5, 1987
- Inbound citations: 15
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Application No. 9599/81
SCOTTS' of GREENOCK (Estd. 1711) Ltd. and LITHGOWS Limited
against
the United Kingdom
Report of the Commission
(Adopted on 5 March 1987)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES 1
(paras. 1 - 3)
II. THE SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 1
(paras. 4 - 5)
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 1
(paras. 6 - 16)
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 3
(paras. 17 - 19)
APPENDIX: Decision on Admissibility 4 - 27
I. THE PARTIES&S
1. This Report, which is drawn up by the Commission in accordance
with Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, concerns the application
brought by Scotts' of Greenock (Estd. 1711) Ltd. and Lithgows Limited
against the United Kingdom.
2. The applicants were represented before the Commission by
Messrs. Neil Clark and Plant Hill (formerly Neil Clark & Murray),
Solicitors and Estate Agents of Glasgow.
3. The United Kingdom Government was represented before the
Commission by its Agents, first Mr. D.M. Edwards, succeeded by
Mr. M.R. Eaton, succeeded by Mr. M. Wood, all of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS&S
4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's Decision
as to the admissibility of the application of 11 March 1985, attached
hereto as an Appendix (pp. 4 - 27).
5. The pertinent facts and complaints may be summarised as
follows: The applicants are companies incorporated in the United
Kingdom whose jointly owned subsidiary, Scott Lithgow Drydocks
Limited, was nationalised under the terms of the Aircraft and
Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. The applicants contend that the
compensation which was paid for the nationalisation of Scott Lithgow
Drydocks Limited was inadequate and contrary to Article 1 Protocol No. 1,
read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention,
that additionally their rights under Article 6 of the Convention,
including the right of access to court and the fair determination of
their civil rights within a reasonable time, were denied and, in
addition, that Article 13 of the Convention was violated.
III. THE PROCEEDINGS&S
6. The present application was introduced on 18 November 1981 and
registered on 2 December 1981. On 10 December 1981 the Commission
decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government
in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and
to request the parties' written observations.
7. On 30 June 1982 the respondent Government submitted their
observations. The applicants' reply was submitted on 24 November 1982.
8. On 12 July 1984 the Commission decided to invite the parties
to submit such further observations as they considered necessary on
the admissibility of the application, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 3 (a),
such observations to be in writing. The applicants submitted further
observations on 17 October 1984.
9. On 11 March 1985 the Commission declared the application
admissible. On 15 March 1985 the Commission decided to invite the
parties to make any proposals which they might have with regard to a
friendly settlement of the application, and to invite the applicants,
pursuant to Rule 45 para. 2 of the Rules of Procedure, to set out the
facts and make legal submissions relating to the sale of certain land
previously owned by Scott Lithgow Drydocks Limited,
10. The applicants made further submissions in this respect on
19 September 1985. The respondent Government's reply thereto was
submitted on 18 December 1985. On 1 April 1986 the applicants
lodged their final submissions with the Commission.
11. On 9 May 1986 the Commission decided to adjourn its further
examination of the merits of the application pending the judgment of
the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Lithgow and Others.
Judgment was given in that case on 8 July 1986.
12. On 17 July 1986, following the judgment, the applicants'
representatives requested the opportunity to make further written
submissions to the Commission in relation to the application.
13. On 11 October 1986 the Commission resumed its examination of
the merits of the application and decided to invite the parties to
submit such further observations on the merits as they considered
appropriate in the light of the above-mentioned judgment of the Court.
The Commission also requested the respondent Government, pursuant to
Rule 45 para. 2 of the Rules of Procedure, to submit certain reports
and valuations prepared in respect of the nationalisation of Scott
Lithgow Drydocks Limited at the time of that company's
nationalisation. The reports were filed by the respondent Government
on 12 November 1986, and on 17 December 1986 the respondent Government
submitted their further observations on the merits of the application.
14. On 18 December 1986 the applicants' representatives informed
the Commission that the applicants wished to withdraw the present
application concerning the nationalisation of Scott Lithgow Drydocks
Limited in the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of
Lithgow and Others.
15. On 16 February 1987 the respondent Government were consulted,
in accordance with Rule 49 para. 2 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, as to striking the present application off the Commission's
list of cases. The respondent Government informed the Commission on
24 February 1987 that they would have no objection to the Commission
following such a course.
16. On 5 March 1987, the Commission decided to strike the present
application off its list, in accordance with Rules 44 para. 1 (b) and
49 of its Rules of Procedure. It adopted the present Report and
decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the parties
for information and to publish it. The following members were present:
MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
G. SPERDUTI
J. A. FROWEIN
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
B. KIERNAN
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
H. VANDENBERGHE
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION&S
17. The Commission notes that the applicants have expressly
requested that their application be withdrawn from the Commission's
list of cases.
18. The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicants no longer
wish their case to be examined, and that there are no reasons of a
general character affecting the observance of the Convention which
warrant further examination of the application.
19. For these reasons, the Commission, having regard to
Rules 44 para. 1 (b), 49 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,
- decides to strike Application No. 9599/81 off its
list;
- adopts the present Report;
- decides to send the present Report to the Committee of
Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties,
and to publish it.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)