Information Note on the Court’s case-law 59

December 2003

Transado-Transportes Fluviais do Sado, S.A., v. Portugal (dec.) - 35943/02

Decision 16.12.2003 [Section III]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Deprivation of property

Interpretation by an arbitration court of a contract of concession: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 not applicable

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Tr ibunal established by law

Inclusion of courts of arbitration in the notion of « tribunal »

The applicant company provided a river transport service on the basis of a concession contract. A clause in the contract specified that the applicant company would receive compensation corresponding to the value of assets acquired by it that were not writt en off at the end of the concession, subject to a prior agreement between the parties regarding the writing-off period. However, no such agreement was confirmed. On expiry of the concession period, the applicant company asked to receive the compensation. T he subsequent dispute between the parties was submitted to an arbitration tribunal, composed in accordance with the provisions of the contract. The arbitration tribunal established that there had been no agreement between the parties on the writing-off per iod and found against the applicant company.

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant company complained that it had been deprived of its possessions without compensation. However, no interference in that right was attributable to the Portuguese authorities. The deprivation of property had resulted from a reasonable and objective interpretation by the arbitration tribunal, composed in accordance with the concession contract, of a private-law clause inserted by the parties to the contrac t. Accordingly, there had been no interference by the public authorities with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions: incompatible ratione materiae .

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The arbitration tribunals came within the concept of a “tribunal”. By choosing to include in the contract an arbitration clause providing that no appeal lay against the arbitration tribunal’s decision, the applicant company had lawfully and unequivocally waived certain rights, a waiver which Arti cle 6 did not preclude.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes