Where agricultural property is bought subject to the conditions of the general law, and the purchaser is subsequently obliged to re-sell the property at a substantially lower price, the Court will consider the lawfulness and purpose of the deprivation, bearing in mind the State’s margin of appreciation. There are many circumstances where statutes empower the executive or the courts to make orders depriving a person of some of his possessions. The exercise of such powers prima facie engages article 1, irrespective of whether the enabling statute was enacted before or after the property affected by the order was acquired. In this case the law was in place before the property in question was acquired. The law providing for the compulsory resale of the applicants’ land within two years existed when they bought the land.
(1990) 13 EHRR 1, 11855/85, [1990] ECHR 1
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 1
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.165056