CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 mai 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 May 1986, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   G. SPERDUTI                   J. A. FROWEIN                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   G. TENEKIDES                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER               Mrs G. H. THUNE               Sir Basil HALL                  Mr J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 15 September 1983 by Martin James POLLACK and Others (the Alexander Trust) against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 September 1983 under file No. 10560/83;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having regard to:   -        The Commission's decision of 11 May 1984 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government but not to invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility and to adjourn the application;   -        the Commission's decision of 8 March 1986 to invite the applicants, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) of its Rules of Procedure, to inform it whether they proposed to pursue the application in view of the judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others;   -        the applicants' reply of 25 March 1986,   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicants, M.P., E.B., J.G., R.A. and W. D. are Trustees of the Alexander Trust and, as such, owners of residential property in London.   They are represented before the Commission by Messrs. Bircham & Co., solicitors, of London SW1. The applicants complain that they have been deprived of a number of properties by tenants exercising rights of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and amending legislation.   They invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (P1-1) and Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 13, art. 14).   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 15 September 1983 and registered on 20 September 1983.   On 11 May 1984 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(b) of the Rules of Procedure without requesting observations on its admissibility and merits and to adjourn the case pending the final decision in Application No. 8793/79, which raised similar issues.   On 8 March 1986 the Commission resumed its examination of the admissibility of the application in the light of the judgment of the Court of 21 February 1986 in the case of James and Others (formerly Application No. 8793/79) and decided to invite the applicants pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) of the Rules of Procedure to indicate whether they wished to pursue the present application.   On 25 March 1986 the applicants informed the Commission that they wished to withdraw the application in view of the Court's judgment in the case of James and Others.   FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION   The applicants complained that the compulsory enfranchisement of their tenants' interests in freehold properties under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 13, art. 14).   However, in view of the Court's judgment in the case of James and Others, which relates to similar complaints, the applicants have informed the Commission that they wish to withdraw the application.   The Commission finds that the applicants do not wish to maintain their application and that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate a further examination of the case.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES   Deputy Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission            (J. RAYMOND)                                (C. A. NØRGAARD)