§ Mr. Ripponasked the Attorney-General in what respect the Government's pleadings in the case of Lithgow and others now before the European Court of Human Rights vary from those presented to the European Commission of Human Rights.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe handling of cases under the European Convention on Human Rights is the responsibility of my right hon. and Learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but I will answer this question with his agreement. The main difference in the Government's pleadings in its memorial to the European Court of Human Rights from those in its observations to the European Commission of 409W Human Rights is that the Government have accepted the finding in the Commission's Report that there is inherent in Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights a right to compensation for the taking of the property of anyone within the jurisdiction of a contracting state where and in so far as the payment of compensation is necessary to preserve the appropriate relationship of proportionality between the interference with the individual's rights and the public interest. In accepting this finding the Government also of course accept the Commission's conclusion that the compensation actually paid in these cases met the requirements of Article 1.