CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 avril 1998

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 24463/94                       by Alfred John Terence PENTON                       against Turkey           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1998, the following members being present:              MM     S. TRECHSEL, President                  J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            MM     R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV              Mr     M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 28 March 1994 by Alfred John Terence PENTON against Turkey and registered on 23 June 1994 under file No. 24463/94;         Having regard to :   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the Commission's decision of 20 May 1997 to communicate the       application;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       24 November 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 12 January 1998.         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1926. He is retired and resides in Burbage, Leicestershire.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows:         In 1970 W.L. Randall Ltd, a company owned by the applicant and another British citizen, and Mr. P.G.N., a Greek Cypriot, founded Hosiery Mills Ltd, a company incorporated under Cypriot law. Mr. P.G.N. owned 51% of the shares and W.L. Randall Ltd 49%. Sometime in 1971 the applicant became the exclusive owner of W.L. Randall Ltd. Hosiery Mills Ltd used to manufacture goods in a factory in Famagusta.         In 1974, when the Turkish army entered Famagusta, the applicant and his partner lost possession of the factory, together with plant machinery and stock which belonged to their company.         The applicant applied to the authorities of the "Cyprus Turkish Federal State" for registration of Hosiery Mills Ltd. On 27 February 1975 the authorities of the "Cyprus Turkish Federal State" requested the applicant to submit a number of documents. On 4 April 1977 the applicant informed these authorities that he had sent them the documents they had requested by registered mail and that he was surprised to hear that they had not received them.         On 4 December 1991 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed a Member of Parliament making enquiries on behalf of the applicant that most commercial claims for moveable property in the northern part of Cyprus had been settled with the exception of claims from "persons or companies with Greek, Greek Cypriot or Armenian connections, and those from companies which have failed to register with the Turkish Cypriot Register of Companies".         On 6 November 1992 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed the applicant that "it does appear likely ... that the Turkish authorities did ... receive in 1977 the documents they are now insisting were never presented to them. Indeed, there is evidence on the file that a duplicate set of these documents was handed by the High Commission on 29 November 1977 to M.H., of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Ministry of Defence." According to the Foreign Office, "the real problem is the company's Greek or Greek Cypriot connections and all the rest of the obstacles put in the way of progress are just so many red-herrings".   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he has been deprived of his possessions without compensation.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 28 March 1994 and registered on 23 June 1994.         On 20 May 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the application.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 24 November 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 12 January 1998.   THE LAW         The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) that he has been deprived of his possessions without compensation.         Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention provides as follows:         "The Commission may receive petitions ... from any person, non-       governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be       the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties       of the rights set forth in this Convention."         The respondent Government submit that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of the above provision, since the property in question belonged to Hosiery Mills Ltd, a legal person distinct from the applicant.         The applicant claims that he can claim to be a victim because he is a shareholder and director of Hosiery Mills Ltd as well as a person working for that company.         The Commission recalls that the term victim in Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue (Eur. Court HR, Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66). The Commission has accepted that persons with a substantial majority shareholding in a company can, under certain circumstances, claim to be victims of measures directed against the property of the company (Kaplan v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 17.7.80, para. 131, D.R. 21, p. 23). However, minority shareholders cannot in principle claim to be victims of such measures (No. 9266/81, Dec. 28.1.83, D.R. 30, p. 155). Piercing the corporate veil can be justified only in exceptional circumstances (Eur. Court HR, Agrotexim and others v. Greece judgment of 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330, p. 25, para. 66).         The Commission notes that the applicant is the sole shareholder of W.L. Randall Ltd. However, that company is not the majority shareholder of Hosiery Mills Ltd against the property of which the measures complained of have allegedly been directed. Neither does the applicant appear to have taken any steps towards having the application introduced by Hosiery Mills Ltd itself. The Commission does not ignore the political realities of the situation in Cyprus and could envisage the existence of special circumstances which might have precluded the majority shareholder of Hosiery Mills Ltd, a Greek Cypriot, from cooperating in the taking of all the necessary steps for lodging such an application. However, the applicant does not invoke the existence of any such circumstances.         It follows that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of the violation complained of. The Commission, therefore, considers that the application is incompatible ratione personae and that it must be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) thereof.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           M. de SALVIA                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                             President      to the Commission                     of the Commission