JAMES AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
15
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
32. At the public hearings on 23 and 24 September 1985, the
Government made the following final submission:
"Having regard to the written and oral arguments and to the report of the
Commission, we invite the Court to hold in favour of the Government ... and dismiss
the complaints of the applicants."
33. For their part, the applicants
"respectfully invite[d] the Court to hold these applications well founded, to rule that
in each and every application the applicants’ Convention rights referred to, and in
particular their right of property under Article 1 [of Protocol No. 1] (P1-1), were
wrongfully violated, and to procure for these applicants just satisfaction for those
violations".
AS TO THE LAW
I. ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 (P1-1)
34. The applicants claimed that the compulsory transfer of their property
under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended, gave rise to a violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which reads:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest
and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State
to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance
with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or
penalties."
They submitted that the Act has
(i) interfered with agreements between the applicants and their tenants
freely made before it came into effect;
(ii) frustrated the expectations with which the applicants entered into the
agreements, and on which the terms of such agreements were based;
(iii) compelled the applicants to sell the properties, against their will, to
private individuals for the benefit of those individuals;
(iv) deprived the applicants of their property at a price always below, and
often far below, market value;
(v) enabled tenants to sell the properties in the open market for large
profits after claiming enfranchisement;