Hudoc Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (ratione temporis); Preliminary objection allowed (victim); Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible, new complaint)
The applicant companies held shares in a company owning development land. The local Council took steps to expropriate the land. The shareholders complained that the company’s rights had been violated and that, in turn, that had adversely affected their rights because of the resulting fall in the value of their shares. The complaint was based on the proposition that the alleged violation of the Brewery’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had affected their own financial interests because of the resulting fall in the value of their shares.
Held: A lifting of the corporate veil so as to disregard the fact that the person directly affected – the Brewery – was a separate legal personality and was (if anyone was) the victim, would be justified only in exceptional circumstances such as where it itself could not have raised the complaint.
14807/89, (1996) EHRR 250,  ECHR 42
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited – Weir and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another ChD 14-Oct-2005
The claimants were shareholders in Railtrack. They complained that the respondent had abused his position to place the company into receivership so as to avoid paying them compensation on a repurchase of the shares. Mr Byers was accused of ‘targeted . .
Adopted – Humberclyde Finance Group Ltd v Hicks 14-Nov-2001
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.165381