CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65 June 2004 Calheiros Lopes and Others v. Portugal (dec.) - 69338/01 Decision 3.6.2004 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Delay in fixing and paying final compensation in respect of nationalisation: admissible Article 35 Article 35-3-a Ratione materiae Alleged separate violation of general principles of international law: inadmissible The applicants were shareholders in the largest Portuguese agricultural company. The company was nationalised in 1975; the terms of compensation for shareholders were to be established at a later date. An initial sum for provisional compensation was fixed by the State in April 1980. This amount was reviewed and increased in 1984 and 1986. The final amount of compensation was initially determined in 1988. At the applicants’ request, an arbitration tribunal increased the final amount in a 1990 decision. The State opposed this decision and in November 1993 it fixed a new amount for final compensation of the applicants. The applicants lodged an application for judicial review in 1994 and were successful. Following an appeal by the State, the domestic courts dismissed their claims with final effect in November 2000. Having regard to its jurisdiction ratione temporis , the Court could not examine the complaints in so far as they concerned nationalisation and the amount of compensation to be paid, events which had occurred prior to ratification of the Convention by the respondent State (cf. the judgment in Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal , ECHR 2000-I):   inadmissible . Admissible under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the complaints concerning the determination and late payment of the final compensation. The Court cannot examine separate allegations of violation of the general principles of international law, but may take such allegations into consideration when examining allegations of violations of Articles of the Convention, and must take them into consideration when interpreting the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes