CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 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 16 May 1986, the following members being present:                 MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   G. TENEKIDES                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER               Sir Basil HALL                 Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, 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 17 October 1983 by J.J. and Others against the United Kingdom and registered on 5 November 1984 under file No. 11272/84;   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 5 March 1986 to request the applicants pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) to inform it whether they wished to pursue the application in the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others;   -        the reply submitted by the applicants on 8 April 1982;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the applicants may be summarised as follows.   The applicant are trustees acting under the will of the Second Duke of Westminster.   The first applicant, J.N.C.J. is a chartered surveyor and resident in London.   The second applicant, G.C., the Sixth Duke of Westminster, resides in Chester. The third applicant, R.B.W., is a banker in London.   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Messrs.   Boodle Hatfield, Solicitors of London.   The applicants, as trustees, are owners of residential property in London.   Their application relates to property transactions under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended, under which a number of leases held by tenants of the Westminster Estate have been extended by the tenants, on terms which the trustees contend are contrary to Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (the 1967 Act), the tenants of houses held on "long leases" (over 21 years) were given the right to purchase an extension of the lease, on certain terms and subject to certain conditions.   The entitlement to exercise the power to extend a lease in this way was granted to tenants whose house was their main residence, provided that the valuation of the property for local taxation purposes ("rateable value") did not exceed a certain figure, and that the annual rent should be a "low rent", calculated as less than two thirds of the rateable value.   Under Section 14 (1) of the 1967 Act, a qualifying tenant has the right to acquire an extension of 50 years to his existing lease, so that his existing tenancy is replaced by a new tenancy, for a term which terminates 50 years after the expiration date of his existing tenancy.   Where a tenant exercises his right to call for an extended lease, the rent payable for his tenancy is the existing annual rent for the period until the expiry of his existing tenancy, and thereafter, for the period of the 50 year extension, a "modern ground rent", representing the letting value of the site of the house, without including anything for the value of the buildings on the site, calculated at the date when the extension commences.   In accordance with Section 15 (2) of the 1967 Act, there is a review of this rent after 25 years of the extended lease.   Subsequent legislation has adjusted the categories of houses to which the right to extend leases applies.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The present application was introduced on 17 October 1983, and registered on 5 December 1984.   On 7 January 1985 the applicants' representatives informed the Commission that they were preparing the full details of the present application relating to extended leases and setting out their legal arguments, in a form similar to their previous application, Application No. 8793/79.   In the same letter they requested the Commission to defer any detailed investigation of the present application until the determination of the previous Application No. 8793/79.   In the meantime, the applicants continued to inform the Commission, at appropriate intervals, of requests made by tenants of the Westminster Estate for the extension of leases, to which the trustees have been compelled by the terms of the 1967 Act, to accede.   On 5 March 1986 the Commission decided pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) of its Rules of Procedure to request the applicants to inform it whether they wished to pursue their application in the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others.   By letter of 8 April 1986 the applicants' representatives informed the Commission that the applicants wished to withdraw the application.   FINDING OF THE COMMISSION The applicants complained of the effect of the opportunity given to certain tenants under the 1967 Act to extend the leases of houses of which the applicants were the freeholders.   They invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention (art. 13, art. 14).   By letter of 8 April 1986 the applicants' representatives informed the Commission that the applicants wished to withdraw the application in the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others.   The Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which might justify the further examination of the case.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES   Secretary to the Commission          Acting President of the Commission       (H. C. KRÜGER)                          (J. A. FROWEIN)