Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
October 1995
Agrotexim and Others v. Greece - 14807/89
Judgment 24.10.1995
Article 34
Locus standi
Victim
Town-planning measures taken by a municipality with a view to expropriating real estate belonging to a limited company in difficulties and not followed by formal proceedings for ten years: absence of victim status
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
A.Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis
Successive actions of Athens Municipal Council could be regarded as series of steps amounting to continuing violation and indicating existence of a plan by the Council to purchase the two sites in question at the lowest possible price – objection based on the applicant companies' lack of the status of "victim" more fundamental than the objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis – unnecessary to rule on this issue.
B.Lack of the status of "victim"
Applicant companies shareholders in a limited company – complaint based exclusively on proposition that alleged violation of that company's right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had adversely affected the financial interests of its shareholders because of resulting fall in the value of their shares – they regarded the company's financial losses and its rights as their own – they had been, they argued, victims, albeit indirectly, of alleged violation.
Criterion for according shareholders locus standi unacceptable in the Court's view – difficulties in determining who is entitled to apply to the Convention institutions and with requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies – piercing of "corporate veil" only justifiable in exceptional circumstances.
Company in question had not ceased to exist as a legal person -liquidators had legal capacity to defend its rights and had performed their duties satisfactorily – not established that when the application was lodged, it had been impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through its liquidators.
Conclusion: objection allowed (eight votes to one).
II.ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Neither Article 6 nor Article 13 implies that under national law of the Contracting States shareholders in a limited company have the right to bring an action seeking an injunction or damages in respect of the act or omission that is prejudicial to their company.
Applicants had not shown that a different construction should be placed on their complaint declared admissible by the Commission than that adopted by latter – lack of jurisdiction.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy