CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 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 13 May 1986, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL                 Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 26 February 1985 by R.A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 March 1986 under file No. 11413/85;   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 9 October 1985 to bring the         applicationto the notice of the respondent Government but         not to invite them to submit observations on its admissibility         at this stage and to adjourn the application pending the         Judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others   -        the Commission's decision of 8 March 1986 to ask the applicant         pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) whether he wishes to pursue his         application in view of the judgment in the case of James         and Others;   -        the applicant's reply of 14 April 1986.           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the applicant, a British citizen born in 1921 and resident in Fife, Scotland, by his representatives, Messrs. J.C. and A. Steuart, W.S., Solicitors, of Edinburgh, may be summarised as follows.   The applicant is proprietor of the Estate of Watten and South Dunn in the County of Caithness in Scotland and landlord of the properties which are the subject of this application and which form part of this Estate.   In September 1984 the applicant agreed to sell part of his Estate known as Knapperfield to the tenant, S., such sale including the site of S.'s dwelling house at Knapperfield.   The farm of Knapperfield is a registered croft under the Crofters Acts 1955 and 1961 and as such the sale was subject to the terms of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act").   Section 1 of the 1976 Act gives a crofter the right to require the landlord to convey to him both the croft tenanted by him and the site of any dwelling house on such croft.   Section 4 of the 1976 Act entitles the crofter to seek an order as to the terms of such conveyance from the Land Court failing agreement with the landlord.   Section 4 (2)(a) provides that the consideration payable for the conveyance of the site of the dwelling house shall be:   "4 (2)(a)   the amount as determined by the Land Court which the site, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise assuming that -   (i)   there were or would be no buildings on the site;   (ii)   the site were available with vacant possession;   (iii)   the site were not land to which the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961 apply; and   (iv)   no development of the site were or would be permitted in pursuance of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1972."   In view of the terms of the 1976 Act the applicant and S. agreed upon a price for the croft and the dwelling house and the portion of this price which related to the site of the dwelling house was £5.   In December 1984 the applicant agreed to sell two further crofts to the tenant M.   This sale included the site of the dwelling house, and the proportion of the sale price referable to the dwelling house pursuant to the provisions of the 1976 Act was agreed between the parties to be £5.   On 17 December 1985 the applicant's representative informed the Commission of two further sales under the 1976 Act, the first on 20 December 1984 and the second on 26 November 1985.   The latter transaction did not involve the sale of a dwelling house.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that the effect of the 1976 Act as it applies to him is to compel him to sell his property contrary to his wishes and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   He also contends that the operation of the 1976 Act is discriminatory contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (art. 14) and that he has no remedy under Scots law for these alleged violations of the Convention contrary to Article 13 (art. 13).   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 26 February 1985 and registered on 4 March 1985.   On 9 October 1985 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(b) of the Rules of Procedure without requesting observations at that stage and to adjourn its examination of the application pending the judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others.   The Court's judgment was given in that case on 21 February 1986 and on 8 March 1986 the Commission decided to ask the applicant, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) of its Rules of Procedure, whether he wished to pursue his application in the light of the Court's judgment in that case.   On 14 April 1986 the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that, in the light of the Court's decision in the case of James and Others, the applicant does not wish to pursue his application.   FINDING OF THE COMMISSION   The applicant complained that the right for tenants to purchase the croft farms which they rented from the applicant under the terms of the 1976 Act 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, the applicant has informed the Commission that he wishes to withdraw his application.   The Commission finds that the applicant does not wish to maintain his 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   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission       (H. C. KRÜGER)                          (C. A. NØRGAARD)