Tac,
This may not be great satisfaction for you but refusing to pay compensation for an expropriation by the State infringes the constitutional ranking Protection of property.
I think if s.o. took a decision (refusing compensation) according to this piece of legislation to the courts, he'd win. At least before the ECHR as the UK have ratified the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Art. 1 of this Protocol provides that
"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."
The above "general principles of international law" include an indemnity for expropriation.
Also, I find it very strange that the UK would refuse such a compensation.
|