The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention
relating to the application lodged on 17 August 1981 by Scotts' of
Greenock (Est'd 1711) Ltd. and Lithgows Limited against the United
Kingdom (No. 9482/81);
Whereas on 21 January 1988 the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention
elapsed without the case having been brought before the European
Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
convention;
Whereas in their application the applicants made a number of
complaints relating to the nationalisation of Scott Lithgow Limited
(hereinafter referred to as "Scott Lithgow"), a company jointly owned
by them, under the terms of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries
Act 1977, alleging the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) to the convention and of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1),
Article 13 (art. 13) and Article 14 (art. 14) of the convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on
11 March 1985 and in its report adopted on 17 December 1987 expressed
the opinion:
- unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) arising from the terms of the nationalisation of
Scott Lithgow;
- unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the
convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(art. 14+P1-1) by virtue of the valuation method used in respect of
Scott Lithgow shares;
- by fourteen votes to two, that there had been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) by virtue of the circumstances of
the resale of Scott Lithgow by the respondent government in 1984;
- unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention by virtue of the second
applicant's inability to refer the matter of compensation to a
tribunal or court;
- unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention by virtue of the length of
the arbitration proceedings;
- unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13
(art. 13) of the convention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the convention,
Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the
convention.