The applicants complained that on the nationalisation of their interests under the 1977 Act, the compensation awarded had been inadequate and did not reflect their true value.
Held: Convention jurisprudence permits a proportionate restriction on access to a court, provided the essential rights that are in contest from a Convention point of view are not thereby rendered nugatory. The court considered the economic policies which underlay the nationalisation of shipbuilding companies. The assessment of compensation in a nationalisation case was particularly complex and called for different considerations from those which applied to the compulsory acquisition of land where legislation applicable across the board was required.
ECHR No violation of P1-1. The phrase ‘subject to the conditions provided for by law’ requires the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions. As to the need for a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised, and the requirement that a balance must be struck between the general interest to the community and protection of the individual’s fundamental rights, the taking of property without reasonable compensation would normally constitute a disproportionate interference.
R Ryssdal, President
9006/80,  ECHR 8, (1986) 8 EHRR 329, 9262/81, 9006/80
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.227222