Guide-Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR-April 2021

Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No.
1
to the European Convention
on Human Rights
Protection of property
Updated on 30 April 2021

Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property
Publishers or organisations wishing to translate and/or reproduce all or part of this Guide in the form
of a printed or electronic publication are invited to contact [email protected] for information
on the authorisation procedure.
If you wish to know which translations of the Case-Law Guides are currently under way, please see
Pending translations.
This Guide has been prepared under the authority of the Jurisconsult and does not bind the Court. It may be
subject to editorial revision.
This Guide was originally drafted in English. It is updated regularly, and most recently on 30 April 2021.
The Case-Law Guides are available for downloading at www.echr.coe.int (Case-law – Case-law analysis –
Case-law guides). For publication updates please follow the Court’s Twitter account at
https://twitter.com/ECHR_CEDH.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2021
European Court of Human Rights 2/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

Table of contents
Note to readers ........................................................................................... 5
I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 6
II. General issues ........................................................................................ 7

A. Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – “possessions” ..................................................... 7
1. Concept of “possessions” ................................................................................................. 7
a. Autonomous meaning ................................................................................................ 7
b. Protected “possessions”............................................................................................. 8
i. Legitimate expectations ........................................................................................ 9
c. Different types of “possessions” and other proprietary interests .............................. 11
i. Claims and judgment debts ................................................................................. 11
ii. Company shares and other financial instruments ............................................... 11
iii. Professional clientele......................................................................................... 14
iv. Business licences ............................................................................................... 14
v. Future income .................................................................................................... 14
vi. Intellectual property .......................................................................................... 14
vii. Lease on property and housing rights ............................................................... 15
viii. Social security benefits/pensions ..................................................................... 16
ix. Destruction of property in situations of international or internal armed
conflict – the required level of proof .................................................................. 18
x. Human embryos ................................................................................................. 19
B. Interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property ............................. 19
1. “Three rules” approach .................................................................................................. 19
a. Deprivation of property ............................................................................................ 22
b. Control of use .......................................................................................................... 23
c. General rule ............................................................................................................. 24
2. Principle of lawfulness ................................................................................................... 25
3. Public or general interest ............................................................................................... 27
4. Proportionality and related issues (fair balance, compensation, margin of
appreciation) ................................................................................................................. 29
a. Procedural factors .................................................................................................... 30
b. Choice of measures .................................................................................................. 31
c. Substantive issues relevant for the fair balance test ................................................. 32
d. Issues concerning the applicant ................................................................................ 34
e. Compensation for the interference with property as an element of fair balance ...... 34
C. Positive obligations on member States................................................................................. 37
1. Horizontal effect – interferences by private persons ...................................................... 40
2. Remedial measures ........................................................................................................ 41
3. Enforcement proceedings .............................................................................................. 42
D. Relationship between Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and other Articles of the Convention ........ 44
1. Article 2 ......................................................................................................................... 44
2. Article 3 ......................................................................................................................... 45
3. Article 4 ......................................................................................................................... 45
4. Article 6 ......................................................................................................................... 45
5. Article 7 ......................................................................................................................... 47
6. Article 8 ......................................................................................................................... 48
7. Article 10 ....................................................................................................................... 50

8. Article 11 ....................................................................................................................... 50
9. Article 13 ....................................................................................................................... 51
10. Article 14 ..................................................................................................................... 51
III. Specific issues ..................................................................................... 55

A. Tenancies and rent control .................................................................................................. 55
B. Social welfare cases ............................................................................................................. 58
C. Banking cases....................................................................................................................... 62
D. Taxation .............................................................................................................................. 65
E. Land planning ...................................................................................................................... 67
F. Confiscation of the proceeds of crime .................................................................................. 67
G. Restitution of property ........................................................................................................ 71
H. State-owned companies ...................................................................................................... 74
I. Austerity measures ............................................................................................................... 76
J. Law of the European Union................................................................................................... 78
List of cited cases ...................................................................................... 80

Note to readers
This Guide is part of the series of Case-Law Guides published by the European Court of Human Rights
(hereafter “the Court”, “the European Court” or “the Strasbourg Court”) to inform legal practitioners
about the fundamental judgments and decisions delivered by the Strasbourg Court. This particular
Guide analyses and sums up the case-law on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
on Human Rights (hereafter “the Convention” or “the European Convention”). Readers will find
herein the key principles in this area and the relevant precedents.
The case-law cited has been selected among the leading, major, and/or recent judgments and
decisions.
The Court’s judgments and decisions serve not only to decide those cases brought before the Court
but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention,
thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as
Contracting Parties (Ireland v. the United Kingdom, § 154; Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], § 109).
The mission of the system set up by the Convention is thus to determine, in the general interest,
issues of public policy, thereby raising the standards of protection of human rights and extending
human rights jurisprudence throughout the community of the Convention States (Konstantin Markin
v. Russia [GC], 30078/06, § 89, ECHR 2012). Indeed, the Court has emphasised the Convention’s role
as a “constitutional instrument of European public order” in the field of human rights (Bosphorus
Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], § 156).
This Guide contains references to keywords for each cited Article of the Convention and its
Additional Protocols. The legal issues dealt with in each case are summarised in a List of keywords,
chosen from a thesaurus of terms taken (in most cases) directly from the text of the Convention and
its Protocols.
The HUDOC database of the Court’s case-law enables searches to be made by keyword. Searching
with these keywords enables a group of documents with similar legal content to be found (the
Court’s reasoning and conclusions in each case are summarised through the keywords). Keywords
for individual cases can be found by clicking on the Case Details tag in HUDOC. For further
information about the HUDOC database and the keywords, please see the HUDOC user manual.
* The case-law cited may be in either or both of the official languages (English or French) of the Court and the
European Commission of Human Rights. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to a judgment on the
merits delivered by a Chamber of the Court. The abbreviation “(dec.)” indicates that the citation is of a
decision of the Court and “[GC]” that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber. Chamber judgments that
were not final when this update was published are marked with an asterisk (*).

I. Introduction
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to property
“1. 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.
2. 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.”
HUDOC keywords
Positive obligations (P1-1)
Possessions (P1-1-1) – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions (P1-1-1) – Interference (P1-1-1) –
Deprivation of property (P1-1-1): Public interest (P1-1-1) – Prescribed by law (P1-1-1): Accessibility
(P1-1-1); Foreseeability (P1-1-1); Safeguards against abuse (P1-1-1) – General principles of
international law (P1-1-1)
Control of the use of property (P1-1-2): General interest (P1-1-2) – Secure the payment of taxes (P1-
1-2) – Secure the payment of contributions or penalties (P1-1-2)
1. This guide is intended to provide information for legal practitioners concerning the most
important judgments on the subject delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”)
from its inception up to the present day. It sets out the key principles developed in the Court’s case-
law, together with relevant precedents. The case-law cited is selective: these are leading, significant
and recent judgments and decisions.
2. The Strasbourg Court’s judgments in fact serve not only to decide those cases brought before the
Court but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the European
Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), thereby contributing to the honouring by the
States of the commitments into which they have entered as Contracting Parties (Ireland v. the
United Kingdom, § 154). The mission of the Convention system is thus to determine issues on public-
policy grounds in the common interest, thereby raising the general standards of protection of
human rights and extending human rights jurisprudence throughout the community of the
Convention States (Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], § 89).
3. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right to property. In Marckx v. Belgium, §§ 63-64, the
Court stated for the first time that:
“... By recognising that everyone has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, Article 1 is
in substance guaranteeing the right of property. This is the clear impression left by the words
"possessions" and "use of property" (in French: "biens", "propriété", "usage des biens"); the travaux
préparatoires, for their part, confirm this unequivocally: the drafters continually spoke of "right of
property" or "right to property" to describe the subject-matter of the successive drafts which were the
forerunners of the present Article 1. Indeed, the right to dispose of one’s property constitutes a
traditional and fundamental aspect of the right of property ...
The second paragraph of Article 1 nevertheless authorises a Contracting State to "enforce such laws as
it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest". This
paragraph thus sets the Contracting States up as sole judges of the "necessity" for such a law .... As
regards "the general interest", it may in certain cases induce a legislature to "control the use of
property" (...)

II. General issues
A. Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – “possessions”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to property
“1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. ...”
HUDOC keywords
Possessions (P1-1-1) – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions (P1-1-1)
1. Concept of “possessions”
4. The concept of “possessions” in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is an autonomous one,
covering both “existing possessions” and assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant
can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation”. “Possessions” include rights “in
rem” and “in personam”. The term encompasses immovable and movable property and other
proprietary interests.
a. Autonomous meaning
5. The concept of “possessions” has an autonomous meaning which is independent from the formal
classification in domestic law and is not limited to the ownership of physical goods: certain other
rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as
“possessions” for the purposes of this provision. The issue that needs to be examined in each case is
whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a
substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC],
§ 63; Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], § 124; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 129; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], § 100;
Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 54; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 171; Fabris v. France
[GC], §§ 49 and 51; Parrillo v. Italy [GC], § 211; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 76; Elif Kizil v. Turkey,
§ 61).
6. The fact that the domestic laws of a State do not recognise a particular interest as a “right” or
even a “property right” does not necessarily prevent the interest in question, in some circumstances,
from being regarded as a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Depalle
v. France [GC], § 68, in respect of a revocable and precarious right to occupancy of a public property
on account of a lapse of time; Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], § 129, in respect of the applicant’s
proprietary interest in his unauthorised dwelling). A long-standing tolerance on the part of the
authorities has also conferred property rights on applicants in respect of a disputed plot of land
(Kosmas and Others v. Greece, §§ 68-71). Furthermore, the domestic law ordering the expropriation
of a plot of land in certain circumstances, with the right to compensation, was considered to have
created a proprietary interest (Kutlu and Others v. Turkey, § 58).
7. The Court may have regard to the domestic law in force at the time of the alleged interference if
there is nothing to suggest that that law runs counter to the object and purpose of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, § 31). For example, illegal
constructions can in certain circumstances, be regarded as “possessions” (Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC],
§ 127; Depalle v. France [GC], § 85, see the preceding paragraph; Brosset-Triboulet and Others
v. France [GC], § 71; Keriman Tekin and Others v. Turkey, §§ 42-46), especially if the domestic law
accepts that they are objects of the right to property (Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, § 68). Thus,

the recognition of a proprietary interest by domestic courts is highly relevant in the Court’s
assessment (Broniowski v. Poland [GC], §§ 130-131), although not decisive.
8. The fact that a right to property is revocable in certain circumstances does not prevent it from
being considered as a “possession” protected by Article 1, at least until its revocation (Béláné Nagy
v. Hungary [GC], § 75; Krstić v. Serbia, § 83; Čakarević v. Croatia, § 52; Moskal v. Poland, § 40;
Grobelny v. Poland, § 58). For instance, in Beyeler v. Italy [GC], §§ 104-105, the Court found the
existence of a proprietary interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, even though the contract
for the purchase of a painting was considered null and void by the national authorities, on the
grounds that the applicant had been in possession of the painting for several years, that he had been
considered de facto by the authorities as having a proprietary interest in it and that he had received
compensation (see also below the chapter on Social welfare cases). Similarly, the Court has also held
that a procurement contract may constitute a “possession” within the meaning of the Protocol, even
if the contract was subsequently annulled (Kurban v. Turkey, §§ 64-65).
9. In the case of non-physical assets, the Court has taken into consideration, in particular, whether
the legal position in question gave rise to financial rights and interests and therefore had an
economic value. It has thus considered, for example, intellectual property, such as trademarks,
copyrights and patents (Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.); Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], §§ 72, 76
and 78; Tokel v. Turkey, § 56; AsDAC v. the Republic of Moldova, § 24), or licences to use property in
a particular way (such as licences to serve alcoholic beverages or fishing rights, Tre Traktörer
Aktiebolag v. Sweden, § 53; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, § 66; O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel
Development Ltd v. Ireland, § 89) to constitute “possessions”; as well as the exclusive right to use the
Internet domains registered in the name of a company (Paeffgen GmbH v. Germany (dec.)).
b. Protected “possessions”
10. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person’s existing “possessions” (Marckx v. Belgium,
§ 50; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 64).
11. Thus, an applicant can allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the
impugned decisions related to his “possessions” within the meaning of this provision. “Possessions”
can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can
argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a
property right (Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, § 31; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and
J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 61; Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany
(dec.) [GC], § 74 (c); Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35 (c)).
12. By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to
exercise effectively cannot be considered a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition
(Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], §§ 82-83; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova
v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], § 69; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35(c); Malhous v. the Czech
Republic (dec.) [GC]; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 43; Stretch v. the United Kingdom,
§ 32; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 172) (see below in the specific context of
restitution of expropriated property).
13. No legitimate expectation can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct
interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant’s submissions are subsequently
rejected by the national courts (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 50; and Çiftçiler Joint Stock Company and
Others v. Turkey (dec.), § 82, in the context of once lawfully expropriated property that, after a
considerable lapse of time, was no longer used in the public interest).
14. A person who complains of a violation of his or her right to property must first of all show that
such a right existed (Pištorová v. the Czech Republic, § 38; Des Fours Walderode v. the Czech Republic

(dec.); Zhigalev v. Russia, § 131). Initially, the ascription and identification of property rights is for
the national legal system and it is incumbent on the applicant to establish the precise nature of the
right in the national law and his entitlement to enjoy it. A judgment by which the Constitutional
Court had declared a piece of legislation unconstitutional, but postponed its application, did not
create a legitimate expectation for the period before the judgment became applicable (Dobrowolski
and Others v. Poland (dec.), § 28).
15. Where there is a dispute as to whether an applicant has a proprietary interest which is eligible
for protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court is required to determine the legal position
of the applicant (J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC],
§ 61). The Court found no proprietary interest sufficient to constitute a “possession” in a case where
the liquidation of the applicant’s father’s estate occurred well before her filiation had been
established (Wysowska v. Poland (dec.), §§ 51-52).
16. On the other hand, where the domestic courts had validated the applicant’s husband will, the
applicant had subsequently accepted her husband’s estate by notarised deed and she had then
registered the property transferred to her in the Land Registry, the Court considered that the
applicant’s proprietary interest in inheriting from her husband was of a nature and sufficiently
recognised to constitute a “possession” (Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], §§ 128-132).
i. Legitimate expectations
17. In certain circumstances, a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining an asset may also enjoy the
protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, § 31;
a contrario Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], § 73).
18. For an “expectation” to be “legitimate”, it must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope
and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision, bearing on the property
interest in question (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], §§ 49-50; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy
[GC], § 173; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, § 103; Ceni v. Italy, § 39; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary
[GC], § 75).
19. The concept of “legitimate expectation” in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was first
developed by the Court in Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, § 51. In that case, the
Court found that a “legitimate expectation” arose when outline planning permission had been
granted, in reliance on which the applicant companies had purchased land with a view to its
development. The planning permission, which could not be revoked by the planning authority, was
“a component part of the applicant companies’ property” (ibid., § 51; Stretch v. the United Kingdom,
§ 35, in respect of exercising the option to renew a long-term lease; and Ceni v. Italy, § 43, in respect
of a signed preliminary contract for the purchase of an apartment, the full price paid and the
applicant’s taking possession of the apartment). In this category of cases, the “legitimate
expectation” is thus based on a reasonably justified reliance on a legal act which has a sound legal
basis and which bears on property rights (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 47).
20. Another aspect of the notion of “legitimate expectation” is illustrated in Pressos Compania
Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, § 31. On the basis of a series of decisions of the Court of
Cassation, the Court held that the applicants could argue that they had a “legitimate expectation”
that their claims deriving from shipping accidents would be determined in accordance with the
general law of tort, according to which such claims came into existence as soon as the damage
occurred. The “legitimate expectation” here identified was not in itself constitutive of a proprietary
interest; it related to the way in which the claim qualifying as an “asset” would be treated under
domestic law (Draon v. France [GC], § 70; Maurice v. France [GC], §§ 67-69). Similarly, in Uzan and
Others v. Turkey, § 193, the Court found that the minor applicants had a legitimate expectation
falling within the concept of “possession”, the domestic court having had acknowledged their
capacity to acquire certain rights by inheritance and donation.

21. On the contrary, no legitimate expectation can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the
correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant’s submissions are
subsequently rejected by the national courts (Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 65; Centro
Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 173; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 75; Karachalios
v. Greece (dec.), § 46; Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], § 149). Neither do subsequent legislative
amendments of the relevant provision demonstrate, in and of themselves, that the previous legal
regulation had been flawed (Galakvoščius v. Lithuania (dec.), §§ 42 and 59-60). That case concerned
the authorities’ refusal to refund the applicant the deposit which he had paid in order to stand as a
candidate in municipal elections.
22. No legitimate expectation arises in a situation where the applicant relies on the mere fact that
members of the respondent Government made political statements favourable to the applicant’s
restitution claims (Bata v. Czech Republic (dec.), § 77), or on a programmatic statement in a statute,
referring to a future statute which ultimately was not adopted (Zamoyski-Brisson v. Poland (dec.),
§ 78).
23. In applications concerning claims other than those relating to existing “possessions”, the
requirement that the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant
title to a substantive interest has been examined in different ways in the Court’s case-law (Béláné
Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 76). By way of example, in a number of cases the Court examined,
respectively, whether the applicants had “a claim which was sufficiently established to be
enforceable” (Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], § 74); whether they
demonstrated the existence of “an assertable right under domestic law to a welfare benefit” (Stec
and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], § 51); or whether the persons concerned satisfied the
“legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits”
(Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 17).
24. The Court’s case-law does not contemplate the existence of a “genuine dispute” or an “arguable
claim” as a criterion for determining whether there is a “legitimate expectation” protected by
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, unlike in the context of determining the applicability of Article 6 of the
Convention under its civil limb to the proceedings in a case (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], §§ 50 and 52;
(Draon v. France [GC], § 68). There is therefore no necessary interrelation between the existence of
claims covered by the notion of “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and
the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to the proceedings complained of. The fact that the applicants did
not have a legitimate expectation to have their property restored to them under the substantive
provisions of domestic law was sufficient to exclude the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of
the Convention to the circumstances of the case. At the same time, it did not suffice to exclude a
conclusion that, once a genuine and serious dispute concerning the existence of property rights
arises, the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 become applicable (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 52; J.S. and A.S.
v. Poland, § 51).
25. In sum, notwithstanding the diversity of the expressions in the case-law referring to the
requirement of a domestic legal basis generating a proprietary interest, their general tenor can be
summarised as follows: for the recognition of a “possession” consisting in a “legitimate expectation”,
the applicant must have an assertable right which, applying the principle enounced in paragraph 52
of Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC] (see the following chapter on Claims and judgment debts) may not fall
short of a sufficiently established, substantive proprietary interest under the national law (Béláné
Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 79).

c. Different types of “possessions” and other proprietary interests
i. Claims and judgment debts

26. For a claim to be capable of being considered an “asset” falling within the scope of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, the claimant must establish that it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example
where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 52;
Plechanow v. Poland, § 83; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], § 94; Anheuser-Busch Inc.
v. Portugal [GC], § 65; Haupt v. Austria (dec.), § 47; Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], § 142).
Where that has been done, the concept of “legitimate expectation” can come into play (Draon
v. France [GC], § 65).
27. With regards to claims, the concept of “legitimate expectation” relates also to the way in which
the claim qualifying as an “asset” would be treated under domestic law and in particular to reliance
on the fact that the established case-law of the national courts would continue to be applied in the
same way (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 48).
28. By way of contrast, the Court excluded the applicability of the notion of “legitimate expectation”
to an established claim that could not succeed owing to foreseeable legislative intervention
(National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building
Society v. the United Kingdom, § 69).
29. A conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition does not
constitute a possession for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35;
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], § 83; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the
Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], § 69).
30. A judgment debt which is sufficiently established to be enforceable constitutes a “possession”
(Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, § 59; Burdov v. Russia, § 40; Gerasimov and
Others v. Russia, § 179; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, § 45; Streltsov and other
“Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, § 58). By way of contrast, a judgment debt
which is not final and thus not immediately payable, cannot be considered “sufficiently established
to be enforceable” and accordingly does not constitute a “possession”.
31. A breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention may
occur where the condition is discriminatory (Zeïbek v. Greece, §§ 45-46). Inheritance and succession
claims concerning difference in treatment have been considered as “possessions” (Marckx
v. Belgium, §§ 52-55; Fabris v. France [GC], §§ 52-55).
ii. Company shares and other financial instruments

32. In general, a company share with an economic value together with various rights attaching to it
which enable a shareholder to exert influence on a company, can be considered a “possession”
(Olczak v. Poland (dec.), § 60; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, § 91; Shesti Mai Engineering OOD
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 77). This encompasses also an indirect claim to the company’s assets,
including the right to a share in these assets in the event of its being wound up, but also other
corresponding rights, especially voting rights and the right to influence the company’s conduct and
policy (Company S. and T. v. Sweden, Commission decision; Reisner v. Turkey, § 45; Marini v. Albania,
§ 165).
33. However, as a matter of general principle, shareholders cannot be seen as victims of acts and
measures affecting their companies (Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, §§ 65-66; Olczak v. Poland
(dec.), § 57); Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 111; Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], § 124; Papachela and
AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, § 37), save in exceptional circumstances. However, in Albert and Others v.
Hungary [GC], § 134, the Court confirmed that acts affecting the rights of the shareholders are
distinct from measures or proceedings affecting the company in that both the nature of such acts

and their alleged effect impact the shareholders’ legal rights both directly and personally and go
beyond merely disturbing their interests in the company by upsetting their position in the company’s
governance structure (Olczak v. Poland (dec.), § 58; Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], §§ 131-133,
mentioning a number of cases where the Court implicitly accepted the applicant shareholder’s victim
status; see also Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, §§ 44-45).
34. The Court identified two situations which constitute an exception to the general principle, which
would exclude the victim status of shareholders when the measure is considered to affect the
company (Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], § 124; Papachela and AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, § 37). In
these situations, the Court may decide to pierce the corporate veil “from within” in the parlance of
the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) (Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 111; Albert and Others v. Hungary
[GC], § 138). In other words, it may decide that a shareholder may claim to be a victim under Article
34 of the Convention as a result of actions aimed at the property of a company.
35. The first exception is the situation where the company and its shareholders are so closely
identified with each other that it is considered artificial to distinguish between the two (KIPS DOO
and Drekalović v. Montenegro, § 87). This can be seen in cases brought by shareholders of small or
family-owned or family/run companies or cooperatives, notably where a sole owner of a company
complains about the measures taken in respect of his/her company (Glas Nadezhda EOOD and
Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, § 40; Papachela and AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, § 37), or where all
shareholders of a small cooperative had applied to the Court as applicants, or where one
shareholder in a family-owned firm had lodged an application under the Convention, whilst the
remaining shareholders at least had not objected to that. In this respect, the Court underlined in
Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), that the reason for accepting victim status in such cases was that there
had been no risk of differences of opinion among shareholders or between shareholders and a board
of directors as to the reality of infringement of Convention rights or to the most appropriate way of
reacting to such an infringement (Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], §§ 136-137).
36. The second type of situation in which the Court may disregard the company’s distinct legal
personality and allow its shareholders to bring complaints about a measure affecting the company,
concerns the existence of exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that
it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up
under its articles of incorporation or – in the event of liquidation – through its liquidators (Agrotexim
and Others v. Greece, § 66; Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 111; CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others
v. Slovakia (dec.), § 4; Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, § 66; Veselá and Loyka v. Slovakia
(dec.); G.J. v. Luxembourg, § 24; Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank, §§ 28-29; Vladimirova v. Russia,
§§ 40-41). In cases falling within this group, the mere existence of measures of outside supervision
or control in respect of the company at issue was generally viewed as an important factor, but not
the only one (Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], §§ 124, 138-139 and 143).
37. The burden is on the shareholders to demonstrate either that an official who had been tasked
with looking after the company’s interests had been unable or unwilling to raise the grievances in
issue either at the domestic or Strasbourg level (Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, § 70; Veselá and
Loyka v. Slovakia (dec.); Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], § 144). Alternatively, the shareholder
would have to show that the Convention complaint had concerned a matter, such as the removal of
a regular manager and the appointment of a trustee, in respect of which there had been a difference
of opinion between the trustee and the shareholders, or concerned various actions of the trustee
affecting the interests of the shareholders (Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, § 51;
Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.); Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria (dec.); International Bank for
Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, §§ 90-92; G. J. v. Luxembourg, §§ 23-24;
Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank, §§ 28-29). In each case, the matter had been such that its potential
impact could have had a serious effect on the shareholders’ situation, directly (S.p.r.l. ANCA and
Others v. Belgium (dec.)) or indirectly (G. J. v. Luxembourg, § 24). Sharholders ought to give weighty
and convincing reasons demonstrating that it is practically or effectively impossible for the company
to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of association and

that they should therefore be allowed to proceed with the complaint on the company’s behalf
(Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], §§ 144-145).
38. Applying these general principles, the Court held in Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], that
shareholders who allegedly lost control over their banks when the State placed them under
supervision following the financial crisis could not be considered victims of the impugned acts
against the companies. Firstly, while the reform had considerably impacted the banks and their
statutory bodies, its effect on the rights of the applicant shareholders had been incidental and
indirect. There had been no artificial dilution of their voting power or the outright cancellation of
shares. The size of the applicants’ individual shareholdings did not allow them to control any of the
banks and their influence as a group, not consolidated by any agreement, had been fragmented and
weak (ibid., §§ 154-155). Secondly, the public banks, having numerous shareholders and a fully
delegated management, were not found to be “so closely identified with” the applicants. The exact
percentage of shares that the applicants may have owned in the two banks was not dispositive (ibid.,
§ 157). Lastly, there had been no exceptional circumstances precluding the banks from applying to
the Court in their own names: the banks had remained operational; the applicants, who had
collectively held voting majorities could have directed the banks to bring legal proceedings on their
behalf; the reform and the supervising authorities’ decisions had been open to judicial review; and
there was no evidence of any undue pressure on the banks in this respect (ibid., §§ 159-164).
39. The Court also held that its findings did not appear to be at variance with the standard that has
emerged in the regulatory context of many of the Council of Europe member States, that of
accepting fairly severe intrusive measures in respect of banks and assimilated institutions, as
insufficient regulation of this sector was seen as capable of resulting in serious systemic risks for the
respective economies (ibid., § 167).However, there is a limit to how far member States may go when
attempting to regulate the banking sector (see, for example Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia under
“Banking cases”).
40. In Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 111, the Court clarified that the general principles established in
Agrotexim and Others had been applied on a number of occasions, when dealing with shareholders’
claims to be identified with companies for the purposes of “victim” status – that is, “from within”
(also Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], § 138). However, the Agrotexim line of case-law cannot be
transposed directly to cases concerning the lifting of the corporate veil of a limited liability company
in the interest of its creditors – or “from without”. In situations, where a limited liability company
was used merely as a façade for fraudulent actions by its owners or managers, piercing of the
corporate veil may be an appropriate solution for defending the rights of its creditors, including the
State, and is not wrong as such (Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, § 877). Moreover, in cases
introduced by creditors of State-owned limited liability companies or banks, the Court has found a
breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because of the refusal of the respondent State to pay a debt of
the impugned company or a bank, hiding behind the corporate veil (Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], §§ 114-
15). The Court relied in this regard on the following factors: whether the State siphoned the
corporate funds to the detriment of the company and its stakeholders failed to keep an arm’s-length
relationship with the company or otherwise acted in abuse of the corporate form (Lekić v. Slovenia
[GC], § 111).
41. Finally, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends to bonds which are negotiable on the capital market,
are transferred from one bearer to another and whose value may fluctuate depending on a number
of factors (Mamatas and Others v. Greece, § 90). However, it was considered that a “special-
purpose” or “commodity” State bond, initially providing for a right to receive a car in kind and
subsequently the subject of framework legislation in the immediate post-ratification Convention
period and subsequently, did not encompass the right to acquire property (Grishchenko v. Russia
(dec.).

iii. Professional clientele

42. The Court acknowledged that rights akin to property rights existed in cases concerning
professional practices where by dint of their own work the applicants concerned had built up a
clientele which had, in many respects, the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and,
hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Lederer
v. Germany (dec.); Buzescu v. Romania, § 81; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.); Olbertz
v. Germany (dec.); Döring v. Germany (dec.); Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 54; Van Marle and Others
v. the Netherlands, § 41; Malik v. the United Kingdom, § 89; Rola v. Slovenia, § 71; for a
comprehensive overview of the case-law, see Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary, §§ 31-32).
iv. Business licences

43. A licence to run a business constitutes a possession; its revocation is an interference with the
right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, §§ 62-63; Bimer S.A.
v. Moldova, § 49; Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland, § 49; Capital Bank AD
v. Bulgaria, § 130; Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, § 53; Vékony v. Hungary, § 29; Fredin
v. Sweden (no. 1), § 40; Malik v. the United Kingdom, § 90).
44. A banking licence, the effect of its revocation being to automatically place the bank in
compulsory liquidation, was considered a “possession” (Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, § 130).
45. Furthermore, a licence for nationwide terrestrial television broadcasting without the allocation
of broadcasting frequencies was deprived of its substance (Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano
v. Italy [GC], § 177).
46. Similarly, a mussel seed fishing authorisation, connected to the usual conduct of the applicant’s
aquaculture business, was considered a “possession” and the temporary prohibition on mussel seed
fishing was regarded as a restriction placed on such permit (O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel
Development Ltd v. Ireland, § 89).
v. Future income
47. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not create a right to acquire property (Denisov v. Ukraine [GC],
§ 137). Future income constitutes a “possession” only if the income has been earned or where an
enforceable claim to it exists (Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Wendenburg
and Others v. Germany (dec.); Levänen and Others v. Finland (dec.); Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal
[GC], § 64; Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], § 137).
48. Conversely, the volume of business enjoyed by a liberal profession – with no fixed income and
no guaranteed turnover – which is subject to the hazards of economic life does not constitute a
“possession” (Greek Federation of Customs Officers, Gialouris and Others v. Greece, Commission
decision).
vi. Intellectual property

49. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies to intellectual property as such (Anheuser-Busch Inc.
v. Portugal [GC], § 72).
50. It is applicable to an application for registration of a trade mark even prior to the trade mark
being registered (Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 78) and a fortiori to trade marks (Kamoy
Radyo Televizyon Yayincilik ve Organizasyon A.S. v. Turkey, § 37), patents (Smith Kline and French
Laboratories Ltd v. the Netherlands (dec.); Lenzing AG v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision;
Tokel v. Turkey, § 56), and copyright (Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.). Copyright holders are protected
by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.); SIA AKKA/LAA v. Latvia,
§ 41). A right to publish a translation of a novel falls within the scope of this provision (SC Editura

Orizonturi SRL v. Romania, § 70), and so does the right to musical works and the economic interests
deriving from them, also by means of a licence agreement (SIA AKKA/LAA v. Latvia, § 55).
vii. Lease on property and housing rights

51. In certain cases the Court considered a lease as a proprietary interest attracting the protection
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Stretch v. the United Kingdom, §§ 32-35; Bruncrona v. Finland, § 79;
Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], § 140). In Di Marco v. Italy,
§§ 48-53, the Court considered that the applicant’s legitimate expectation in connection with
property interests such as the use of land and commercial activities attached to it was of sufficient
importance to constitute a “possession” in the sense of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
52. However, the nature of the applicant’s right to “a social lease” (“bail social”) did not amount to a
“possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Tchokontio Happi v. France, § 60) since according to
the domestic judgment, the applicant was to enjoy the right to use a flat, not the right to acquire
one.
53. In the field of housing, often, a key question is whether Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable.
54. In the Commission case of S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), the applicant had lived for many
years in a same-sex relationship with another woman, who was a tenant in a house owned by the
local authority. The applicant herself had no tenancy or any other legal right over that house. After
the death of her partner, the local authority brought proceedings against the applicant and obtained
a court order for her eviction. The Commission found that there had been no contractual nexus
between the applicant and the local authority and that the fact that the applicant had been living in
the house for some time without legal title could not constitute a “possession” within the meaning
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
55. As to the existence of “possessions”, the Commission decision in Durini v. Italy concerned the
allegations of a mother and her daughters that they should have a right to continue living in a family
castle (belonging to a foundation), in spite of the dispositions of their late husband and father’s
ancestors’ will dating from 1918 stipulating that this right should be conferred on the eldest-born
male descendant. The Commission held that the right to live in the castle which one does not own
was not a ”possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that that provision was
not therefore applicable to the case.
56. In the context of internally displaced persons (“IDP”), the Court has considered that, even in the
absence of a registered property title, the applicant’s continued possession of a cottage for more
than 10 years - given its good-faith character as well as the authorities’ manifest tolerance and
adoption of various legal acts confirming the rights of IDPs in the housing sector and establishing
solid guarantees for their protection - amounted to a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, §§ 104-108).
57. In Hamer v. Belgium, § 76, the impugned building, constructed without a planning permit, had
been in existence for twenty-seven years before the domestic authorities recorded the offence. The
authorities continued to tolerate it for ten more years before ordering its demolition. The Court
considered that the applicant’s proprietary interest in the enjoyment of her holiday home, for which
the applicant and previously her father had paid taxes, had been sufficiently established and weighty
as to amount to a substantive interest and therefore to a “possession”.
58. Similarly, in Keriman Tekin and Others v. Turkey, §§ 40-43, the Court considered that a house
constructed without a permit amounted to a “possession”, given that the applicant enjoyed it for a
certain time without having been bothered about its illegality.
59. In Elif Kizil v. Turkey, §§ 67-69, the Court noted that the applicant had validly acquired the title to
property which was entered into the land register. In spite of its subsequent transfer to the public

treasury, her title was never formally cancelled and she continued to enjoy its possession for a
further 28 years and to pay taxes. Given the authorities’ tolerance for such a long time, the
applicant’s proprietary rights amounted to a “possession”.
60. In Valle Pierimpiè Società Agricola S.P.A. v. Italy, §§ 47-51, concerning a fishing production
facility situated in a lagoon in the province of Venice, the applicant company had possessed formal
title to the property, as recorded by a notary and entered in the property registers. It could found its
legitimate expectation on the practice, dating back to the 15th century, of granting individuals title
to the fishing valleys and tolerating their continued occupation and use of them. The applicant had
been paying property tax on Valle Pierimpiè, had been occupying the site and had been acting as the
owner without the authorities ever having taken action. The site was the base for the company’s
activity, the profit the company derived from it was its main source of income and, until the property
had been incorporated into the public maritime domain, the company had had a legitimate
expectation of being able to continue carrying on that activity. The Court therefore held that these
circumstances conferred on the applicant company a title to a substantive interest protected by
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
61. Furthermore, in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], the Court held that the “right of use” of
residential houses and land – both temporary and indefinite – constitutes a “possession” because it
is a strong and protected right which represents a substantive economic interest (§ 147). This is
particularly relevant in the post-Soviet context, where title to a plot of land underneath a building is
not automatically attached to the title to the building itself (Maharramov v. Azerbaijan, § 53). Under
the Soviet legal system, citizens had a right to own residential houses, but there was no private
ownership of land, which instead was considered State property (Chiragov and Others v. Armenia
[GC], § 146; see also Tkachenko v. Russia, § 7, where the underlying and the adjacent land belonged
to the municipality). Accordingly, the “right of use” was the only title to land that an individual could
acquire. Property reforms were subsequently undertaken but, in certain situations, uncertainties
remain as to the existence of the applicants’ property rights.
62. In the absence of proper title, applicants need to provide other kinds of documentary evidence
to support their proprietary interest in the land. For instance, in Maharramov v. Azerbaijan, the
applicant was able to prove the “right of use” of the land on which his shop was built by showing
that he had paid a property tax for the plot of land underneath the building. The Court held that the
applicant was at least a “lawful user” of the land in question by virtue of his ownership of the
immovable property situated there, with a possibility of transferring the land into his ownership in
the future (§ 54). By contrast, in Arsimikov and Arsemikov v. Russia, the applicants could not
establish a claim to the corresponding land because they had failed to produce any evidence in
support of their claim (§ 49) (see also “Destruction of property in situations of international or
internal armed conflict”).
63. Finally, housing assistance for civil servants also constitutes a “possession” as long as one is
eligible for such allowance (Nechayeva v. Russia, §§ 40-41), even if the exact amount was contested.
The Court considered that the reduction of the amount of the allowance not provided for under
Russian law, for budgetary reasons, was unlawful. It also held that the applicant could not have
validly accepted a lower amount, given that such a possibility was not provided by law (ibid., § 48).
viii. Social security benefits/pensions

64. In the older case-law of the Convention organs the making of compulsory contributions towards
social insurance schemes of any kind was considered to create a right protected under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 only where there was a direct link between the level of contributions paid and the
benefits awarded (Müller v. Austria, Commission decision, p. 49). Otherwise the applicant did not, at
any given moment, have an identifiable and claimable share in the fund (G. v. Austria, Commission
decision, p. 86; Kleine Staarman v. the Netherlands, Commission decision, p. 166).

65. However, in a number of later cases the Court has consistently held that even a welfare benefit
in a non-contributory scheme could constitute a possession for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (Bucheň v. the Czech Republic, § 46; Koua Poirrez v. France, § 37; Wessels-Bergervoet v. the
Netherlands (dec.); Van den Bouwhuijsen and Schuring v. the Netherlands (dec.)).
66. Uncertainty as to the applicability of this provision to social insurance benefits was ultimately
clarified in the case of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], §§ 47-56. The Court noted
that in most States, there existed a wide range of social security benefits designed to confer
entitlements which arise as of right. Benefits are funded in a large variety of ways: some are paid for
by contributions to a specific fund; some depend on a claimant’s contribution record; many are paid
for out of general taxation on the basis of a statutorily defined status. Given the variety of funding
methods, and the interlocking nature of benefits under most welfare systems, it was no longer
justified to hold that only benefits financed by contributions to a specific fund fall within the scope
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Moreover, to exclude benefits paid for out of general taxation would
be to disregard the fact that many claimants under this latter type of system also contribute to its
financing, through the payment of tax.
67. In the modern, democratic State, many individuals are, for all or part of their lives, completely
dependent for survival on social security and welfare benefits. Many domestic legal systems
recognise that such individuals require a degree of certainty and security, and provide for benefits to
be paid – subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of eligibility – as of right. Where an individual
has an assertable right under domestic law to a welfare benefit, the importance of that interest
should also be reflected by holding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to be applicable (Stec and Others v. the
United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], § 51; Moskal v. Poland, § 39; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], § 77).
68. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 imposes no restriction on the Contracting States’ freedom to decide
whether or not to have in place any form of social-security scheme, or to choose the type or amount
of benefits to provide under any such scheme (Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, § 36; Kolesnyk
v. Ukraine (dec.), §§ 89 and 91; Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), §§ 34, 37-43, 48; Fedulov v. Russia, § 66). If,
however, a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a
welfare benefit – whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions – that legislation
must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC],
§ 54).
69. Legislation providing for payment of an old-age pension, whether conditional or not on
contributions, generates a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of that Article for those
satisfying its requirements (Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 64).
70. Where the person concerned does not satisfy (Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), § 5),
or ceases to satisfy, the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular
form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Rasmussen v. Poland, § 71), where the conditions had changed before the applicant became eligible
for a specific benefit (Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 17). Where the suspension or
diminution of a pension was not due to any changes in the applicant’s own circumstances, but to
changes in the law or its implementation, this may result in an interference with the rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 86). Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 was found applicable in a case where the applicant was ordered to repay benefits received, in
good faith, in reliance on an administrative decision and where the authorities had made a mistake
(Čakarević v. Croatia, §§ 54-65).
71. In Gaygusuz v. Austria, § 41, the Court found that the right to emergency assistance – a social
benefit linked to the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund – was, in so far
as provided for in the applicable legislation, a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. In Klein v. Austria, § 57, it was noted that entitlement to a pension payable from a

lawyers’ pension scheme – was linked to the payment of contributions, and, when such
contributions had been made, an award could not be denied to the person concerned. Contributions
to a pension fund may thus, in certain circumstances and according to the domestic law, create a
property right (Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, § 39; Apostolakis v. Greece, §§ 28 and 35; Bellet,
Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.); Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.)). For further details, see the
chapter on Social welfare cases below.
72. In Fedulov v. Russia, §§ 70-72, the Court has also held that the eligibility of a disabled person for
free medication (cancer drugs) amounted to a “legitimate expectation” so that Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 was applicable.
ix. Destruction of property in situations of international or internal armed conflict – the

required level of proof
73. In cases where the applicants complained about destruction of their houses in the context of
armed conflicts, the Court accepted the claim of ownership on the basis of extracts from a housing
inventory issued by the town administration after the attack complained of (Kerimova and Others
v. Russia, § 293). In Damayev v. Russia, §§ 108-111, it considered that an applicant complaining
about the destruction of his home should provide at least a brief description of the property in
question. As further examples of prima facie evidence of ownership of or residence in property, the
Court has accepted documents such as land or property titles, extracts from land or tax registers,
documents from the local administration, plans, photographs and maintenance receipts as well as
proof of mail deliveries, statements of witnesses or any other relevant evidence (Prokopovich
v. Russia, § 37; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.)). Also so-called technical passports, seen as “inventory-
technical documents”, were considered to constitute indirect evidence of title to houses and land
(Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], §§ 140-141). Generally, if an applicant does not produce any
evidence of title to property or of residence, his or her complaints about that property having been
destroyed are bound to fail as the Court may not be satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to accept
that the property concerned existed and that it fell within the ambit of the applicant’s “possessions”
(Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], § 183; Lisnyy and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), §§ 26-27) (see
also the sub-chapter on Lease on property and housing rights above).
74. In the case of Doğan and Others v. Turkey, which concerned the forced eviction of villagers in
the state-of-emergency region in south-east Turkey and the refusal to let them return for several
years, the respondent Government raised the objection that some of the applicants had not
submitted title deeds attesting that they had owned property in the village. The Court considered
that it was not necessary to decide whether or not in the absence of title deeds the applicants had
rights of property under domestic law. The question was rather whether the overall economic
activities carried out by the applicants constituted “possessions” coming within the scope of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1. Answering the question in the affirmative, it noted that it was undisputed that the
applicants all lived in Boydaş village until 1994. Although they did not have registered property, they
either had their own houses constructed on the lands of their ascendants or lived in the houses
owned by their fathers and cultivated the land belonging to the latter; they had unchallenged rights
over the common lands in the village, such as the pasture, grazing and the forest land, and earned
their living from stockbreeding and tree-felling. All these economic resources and the revenue that
the applicants derived from them were qualified as “possessions” for the purposes of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (ibid., § 139).
75. To sum up, applicants are required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their
complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about destruction of property in the
context of armed conflict.

x. Human embryos
76. Having regard to the economic and pecuniary scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, human
embryos cannot be reduced to “possessions” within the meaning of that provision” (Parrillo v. Italy
[GC], § 215).
B. Interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s

property
1. “Three rules” approach
77. Once the Court is satisfied that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable to the circumstances of
the case, it embarks on the substantive analysis of the circumstances complained of.
78. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first
sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful
enjoyment of property. The second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph,
covers only deprivation of “possessions” and subjects it to certain conditions. The third rule, stated
in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, inter alia, to control the
use of property in accordance with the general interest (Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, § 61;
Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 55; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United
Kingdom [GC], § 52; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 62; Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 98;
Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], § 44; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 134; and Vistiņš and Perepjolkins
v. Latvia [GC], § 93).
79. The three rules are not “distinct” in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules
are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of
property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the
first rule (Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], § 50; Bruncrona v. Finland, § 65;
Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 62) (for further details, see the sub-chapters on Deprivation
of property, Control of use or General rule).
80. To be deemed compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the interference must fulfil certain
criteria: it must comply with the principle of lawfulness and pursue a legitimate aim by means
reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised (Beyeler v. Italy [GC], §§ 108-114).
81. This approach structures the Court’s method of examination of cases where it is satisfied that
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable (see the chapter on Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1). It consists of a number of successive steps whereby the following questions are addressed:
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his/her
“possessions”? If so, does the interference amount to a deprivation of property? If not, was control
of use of property concerned? If the measures which affected the applicant’s rights cannot be
qualified as either deprivation or control of use of property, can the facts of the case be interpreted
by the Court in the light of the general principle of respect for the peaceful enjoyment of
“possessions”?
82. In the great majority of cases if it is established by the Court that the interference was not
subject to conditions provided for by law or did not pursue the public interest, it finds a violation of
the Convention for that reason alone and does not find it necessary to embark on the analysis of
proportionality of the measures complained of (Simonyan v. Armenia, §§ 25-26; Vijatović v. Croatia,
§ 58; Gubiyev v. Russia, § 83; Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, §§ 52-56; and Bock and Palade v. Romania,
§§ 58-65) (for further details, see the sub-chapters on the Principle of lawfulness and Public or
general interest).

83. However, in certain rare cases the Court leaves one of these questions open and continues the
examination of the case under the proportionality limb (Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, § 67, and
Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v. Bulgaria, § 43) (for further details, see the sub-chapter on
Proportionality and related issues (fair balance, compensation, margin of appreciation)).
84. Once the Court is satisfied that there has been an interference with the applicant’s rights, it
examines in each case to which category the interference complained of belongs. If the applicant’s
ownership has been extinguished under the provisions of domestic law, it will examine the case
under the second sentence of the first paragraph, i.e. as deprivation of “possessions”. Deprivation of
“possessions” covers a range of situations, regardless of how they are qualified under domestic law,
where the very substance of an individual right has been extinguished.
85. Measures less invasive than expropriation may be qualified by the Court as “control of use of
property”. In certain cases a fine line is to be drawn between measures which are qualified as
control of use of property and those which amount to deprivation of property. The same holds true
as regards the distinction to be made between control of use of property and measures examined by
the Court under the first general principle of peaceful enjoyment of one’s “possessions”. Generally,
the less intrusive the measure, the more it lends itself to the analysis under the first general principle
than under the head of control of use.
86. Similar measures may be qualified differently by the Court (e.g. in Sporrong and Lönnroth
v. Sweden, §§ 62-64, an expropriation order combined with prohibition of construction for a
considerable period of time was analysed as control of use of property, while similar measures were
examined under the general principle in Phocas v. France, § 52; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 55; Katte
Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, § 40; Pialopoulos and Others v. Greece, § 53. Likewise, in Pressos
Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, § 34, the extinguishing of compensation claims by
means of legislative intervention was examined as a deprivation of property, whereas in Stran Greek
Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece the Court examined the same kind of measure under the
first rule of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
87. In some cases it is more difficult for the Court to qualify a measure or a series of measures as
either deprivation or control of use of property, essentially because it cannot be easily assimilated to
measures qualified in the existing case-law or because the series of measures consists of disparate
decisions belonging to various branches of domestic law. In such cases it will probably analyse the
circumstances of the case under the general principle of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. This will apply in particular to situations where not just one decision, but a combination of
various measures/decisions affected the applicant’s property (Ðokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
§§ 55-56 – a contract of purchase in respect of a flat legally valid, applicant registered as an owner,
but unable to have the flat restored to him; and Matos e Silva, Lda., and Others v. Portugal, § 85 – in
the absence of a formal expropriation decision restrictions on the right to property stemmed from
the reduced ability to dispose of it and from the damage caused by the fact that expropriation was
contemplated; but the applicants continued to work the land). In a case where the applicants
complained that their rights had been violated on account of the discrepancy between the
assessments of the market value of expropriated property for the purposes of the determination of
compensation and for the purposes of inheritance tax in respect of the same property, expropriation
and taxation were examined separately and no violation was found. However, the combined effect
of both measures was examined under the first rule and resulted in a finding of a violation (Jokela
v. Finland, §§ 61-65).
88. In such cases, although the measures did not all have the same legal effect and had different
aims, the Court normally considers that they must be looked at together in the light of the general
principle of respect for the peaceful enjoyment of one’s “possessions” (Matos e Silva, Lda., and
Others v. Portugal, §§ 84-85).

89. This difficulty in qualifying measures as control of use or as coming under the general principle is
also reflected in the fact that in some cases the Court does not indicate expressly which part of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applied in the case (Papamichalopoulos v. Greece, § 46) or expressly
leaves the question open (Lavrechov v. the Czech Republic, § 43; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia,
§ 55; Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v. Bulgaria, §§ 39-40).
90. In any event, the Court will apply the same criteria of assessment, regardless of the classification
of the interference. In all cases it must serve the public interest (see the chapter on interference in
public interest below), comply with the conditions provided for by law (see the chapter on
Interference subject to conditions provided for by law below) and pass the fair balance test (see the
chapter on Proportionality and related issues below).
91. Proceedings concerning a civil-law dispute between private parties do not engage by themselves
the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (Ruiz Mateos v. the
United Kingdom, Commission decision, pp. 268 and 275; Gustafsson v. Sweden [GC], § 60;
Skowroński v. Poland (dec.); Kranz v. Poland (dec.); Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.); Tormala v. Finland
(dec.); Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, § 310). The mere fact that the
State, through its judicial system, provides a forum for the determination of a private-law dispute
does not give rise to an interference by the State with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (Kuchař and Štis v. the Czech Republic, Commission decision), even if the substantive result of a
judgment given by a civil court results in the loss of certain “possessions”. It is, however, part of the
States’ duties under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 at least to set up a minimum legislative framework
including a proper forum allowing those who claim that their right had been infringed with to assert
their rights effectively and have them enforced. By failing to do so a State would seriously fall short
of its obligation to protect the rule of law and prevent arbitrariness (Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 117).
92. The Court’s jurisdiction to verify that domestic law has been correctly interpreted and applied is
limited and it is not its function to take the place of the national courts. Rather, its role is to ensure
that the decisions of those courts are not arbitrary or otherwise manifestly unreasonable
(Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 83). The State may be held responsible for losses caused by
such determinations only if the court decisions are not in accordance with domestic law or if they
are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or a
person has been arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of property in favour of another (Bramelid and
Malmström v. Sweden, Commission decision, pp. 82-83; Dabić v. the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (dec.); Vulakh and Others v. Russia, § 44).
93. It is only very exceptionally that the Court has regarded a judgment of a civil court as an
interference because the modalities of its execution were so inflexible as to impose an excessive
burden on a party (Milhau v. France, §§ 48-53). This was also the case where an apartment bought
by the applicant on the basis of forged documents indicating that it had been purchased as part of a
privatisation scheme was subsequently taken away from her by the municipality, the Court
considering that the subject matter of the dispute and the substantive provisions applied comprised
significant elements of public law and implicated the State in its regulatory capacity (Gladysheva
v. Russia, §§ 52-59). Similarly, in Zhidov and Others v. Russia, §§ 94-95, the Court found that the
court injunctions issued in proceedings between private parties had constituted an “interference”
because they were pursuing the public interest. In SIA AKKA/LAA v. Latvia, §§ 58-59, a judgment
issued in proceedings concerning the protection of the intellectual property of authors who had
entrusted the applicant organisation to manage the copyright of their musical works was considered
to amount to an interference because it limited the right of the applicant organisation to freely enter
into contracts in relation to the broadcasting of music.

a. Deprivation of property
94. Where the applicant’s rights have been extinguished by operation of law, the Court will examine
the applicant’s complaints under the second rule, which is deprivation of property.
95. In The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, §§ 60-61, the Court held that a statutory provision
automatically giving the use and possession of designated property to the State had for effect the
transfer of full ownership of the land in question to the State and constituted a deprivation of
“possessions”
96. Deprivation of “possessions” may arise also in situations where there has been no formal
decision extinguishing individual rights, but the impact on the applicant’s “possessions” of a set of
various measures applied by the public authorities is so profound as to make them assimilable to
expropriation. In order to determine whether there has been a deprivation of “possessions”, the
Court must not confine itself to examining whether there has been dispossession or formal
expropriation; it must look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the situation
complained of. Since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are “practical and ”, it has
to be ascertained whether that situation amounted to a de facto expropriation (among other
authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, § 63; Vasilescu v. Romania, § 51; Schembri and Others
v. Malta, § 29; Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], § 76; Depalle v. France [GC], § 78). Indeed, under
various Convention Articles, the Court’s case-law indicates that it may be necessary to look beyond
the appearances and the language used and concentrate on the realities of the situation (for
example, Apap Bologna v. Malta, § 83).
97. For example, in a case where the navy took possession of the applicants’ land, established a
naval base there and the applicants were subsequently unable either to have access to their
property or to sell, bequeath, mortgage or make a gift of it, the ability to dispose of the land taken
together with the failure of the attempts made to remedy the situation, entailed sufficiently serious
de facto consequences for the applicants for the Court to consider that they had been expropriated,
even in the absence of any formal expropriation decision (Papamichalopoulos v. Greece, §§ 44-46).
98. In a case concerning continuing detention of gold coins confiscated prior to the entry into force
of Protocol No. 1, where the judgment ordering return of the coins to the applicant given after that
entry was subsequently quashed, the Court noted that practical hindrance can amount to a violation
of the Convention just like a legal impediment. The loss of all ability to dispose of the property taken
together with the failure of the attempts made to have the situation remedied entailed sufficiently
serious consequences for the applicant to be regarded by the Court as a de facto confiscation
(Vasilescu v. Romania, §§ 51-54).
99. In a case where a municipality issued an order, under an expedited procedure for the possession
of the applicant company’s land, took physical possession of that land and began road-building
works, the subsequent judgment retrospectively authorising the unlawful possession by public
authorities, deprived the applicant company of the possibility of obtaining restitution of its land. The
effect of the judgment amounted to a deprivation of its “possessions” (Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l.
v.Italy, § 54). The loss of 40 per cent and 100 per cent of the value of the plots of land combined
with the partial loss of physical access to them as a result of the construction of a dam was also held
to amount to a de facto expropriation (Aygun v. Turkey, § 39). A similar conclusion was drawn in
respect of an unlawful demolition of a building (Zammit and Vassallo v. Malta, § 54).
100. If the Court regards a measure or a set of measures as an expropriation, this normally entails
an obligation for the State to award compensation to the affected owner (see the sub-chapter on
compensation for the Interference with property as an element of fair balance).

b. Control of use
101. Measures qualified by the Court under the third rule, as control of use, cover a range of
situations, including, for example, the following: revocation or change of conditions of licences
affecting the running of businesses (Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, § 55; Rosenzweig and
Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland, § 49; Bimer S.A. v. Moldova, §§ 49 and 51; Megadat.com SRL
v. Moldova, § 65); introducing a State monopoly on the school books market (Könyv-Tár Kft and
Others v. Hungary, §§ 43 and 59); rent control systems (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, § 44;
Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], § 160; Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, § 54; Bittó and Others v. Slovakia,
§ 101); statutory suspension of the enforcement of orders for re-possession in respect of tenants
who had ceased to pay rent (Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], § 46); limitations imposed by law on the
level of rent that the property owners could demand from the lease holder and the indefinite
extension of a lease contract on the same terms, while the owners continued to receive rent on the
same terms they had freely agreed to when signing the contract and were free to sell their land
albeit subject to the lease attaching to the land (Lindheim and Others v. Norway, § 75-78); loss of
certain exclusive rights over land (Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], § 74 – obligation to
tolerate hunting on the applicants’ land; Herrmann v. Germany [GC], § 72); refusal to issue official
registration of a car (Yaroslavtsev v. Russia, § 32; Sildedzis v. Poland, § 45); imposition of positive
obligations on land owner (e.g. obligatory reafforestation – Denev v. Sweden, Commission decision);
or imposition of a legal qualification as forest land, with the attendant obligations imposed on the
owner (Ansay and Others v. Turkey (dec.)).
102. Demolition of buildings which have been unlawfully constructed is usually regarded as control
of use of property (Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, § 69). In Saliba v. Malta, § 46, the Court held
that the effect of ordering the demolition of a totally unlawful construction was to put things back in
the position they would have been in had the requirements of the law not been disregarded.
However, in a number of cases the demolition measure amounted to a penalty and therefore came
under the criminal head of Article 6 of the Convention, even though there had been no criminal
conviction (Hamer v. Belgium, §§ 59-60). Similarly, in Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy (dec.), the
Court held that Article 7 applied to the confiscation of unlawfully developed land resulting in
subsequent demolition of the buildings already erected.
103. Forfeiture and confiscation are generally regarded by the Court as control of use of property,
to be considered under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 despite the obvious fact
that they entail a deprivation of “possessions” (AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, § 51; Raimondo
v. Italy, § 29; Honecker and Others v. Germany (dec.); Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.)). Therefore, the
Court’s constant approach is that a confiscation measure constitutes control of use of property (Air
Canada v. the United Kingdom, § 34; Silickienė v. Lithuania, § 62; Aktiva DOO v. Serbia, § 78). In S.A.
Bio d’Ardennes v. Belgium, §§ 47-49, the compulsory slaughter of numerous animals infected with
brucellosis because of several breaches of animal health regulations amounted to a control of use.
104. However, where the confiscation of an instrument of crime concerns the property of third
parties and amounts to a permanent measure, the Court has analysed such interferences as a
deprivation of possessions (Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, § 36, the
permanent confiscation of a car used by a third party to smuggle migrants; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik
Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, § 48, the permanent confiscation of a company’s lorry used by a
third party for drug trafficking; Yașar v. Romania, § 49, the permanent confiscation of the applicant’s
vessel used by third person for illegal fishing). In Aktiva DOO v. Serbia, § 78, the Court decided
to leave open the question of which rule was applicable and found that the confiscation of goods
imported by the applicant company, legally but in breach of recording regulations, was
disproportionate.
105. Even preventive confiscation measures, imposed in the absence of a criminal conviction, do
not, as such, amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The operation of the presumption

that the property of a person suspected of belonging to a criminal organisation represents the
proceeds from unlawful activities, if the relevant proceedings afford the owner a reasonable
opportunity of putting his or her case to the authorities, is not prohibited per se, especially if the
courts are debarred from basing their decisions on mere suspicions (Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.)).
106. Furthermore, where the applicant’s server was retained for about seven and a half months for
the purposes of a criminal investigation against third parties and had previously been used by him
for professional activities, the Court found that the domestic authorities had failed to strike the
requisite fair balance between the legitimate aim pursued (prevention of disorder or crime and the
protection of the rights of others) and the applicant’s property rights (Pendov v. Bulgaria, §§ 44-51
and 63). The Court also noted that the authorities could have copied the relevant information and
returned the server to the applicant, which was of importance for his professional activity.
107. Finally, the obligation to pay court fees – and the corresponding regulations – is covered by the
second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Charging litigants court fees pursues various aims,
including financing the judicial system and increasing public revenue (Perdigão v. Portugal [GC],
§ 61). However, in several cases which followed Perdigão, the Court has examined a court order to
defray the costs of the other party as an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions which falls within the general rule set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of
Article 1 of Protocol No.1. In Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, § 92, it further distinguished between costs
related to the court system as such, and costs incurred by the winning party and due under the
“loser pays” rule, indicating that only the former were to be included in the notion of
“contributions” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (National
Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria, §§ 69-71) (see also under “Article 6”).
c. General rule
108. The first rule is of a general nature. If the interference with the property rights cannot be
qualified under the second or the third rule, the first rule applies (the so-called catch-all formula).
109. In Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, §§ 64-65, the Court held that the expropriation permits
were an initial step in a procedure leading to deprivation of “possessions” and examined them under
the first sentence of the first paragraph.
110. In Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, §§ 62 and 68, the Court examined the
legislative intervention declaring the arbitration award void and unenforceable under the general
rule and found a violation of the applicants’ right to property.
111. The case Loizidou v. Turkey (§§ 61-64), concerned the applicant’s access to her property in
Northern Cyprus. The Court held that the applicant’s complaint was not limited to the right to
freedom of movement and that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applied. The applicant remained the legal
owner of the land. The continuous denial of access by Turkish forces was regarded as interference
and a violation of the applicant’s right to property under the general rule was found.
112. Measures such as land consolidation proceedings (Prötsch v. Austria, § 42), town-planning
policy (Phocas v. France, § 52), administrative eviction (Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 55), approval of
land-use plan (Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, § 40), and a planning measure – a building freeze –
on the applicant’s property (Pialopoulos and Others v. Greece, § 56) were examined under the
general principle. An alleged violation of the right of property resulting from an annulment of the
applicant’s procurement contract, which the Court found could not be classified in a precise
category, was similarly examined in the light of the general rule (Kurban v. Turkey, §§ 74-75).

2. Principle of lawfulness
113. Any interference with the rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must meet the
requirement of lawfulness (Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], § 95; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary
[GC], § 112). The phrase “subject to conditions provided for by law” concerning any and all
interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” is to be construed in the
same manner as the phrase “in accordance with law” in Article 8 in respect of interference with the
rights protected by this provision or “prescribed by law” relating to interferences with the rights
protected under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.
114. The principle of lawfulness is the first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. The second sentence of the first paragraph authorises a deprivation of “possessions” “subject
to the conditions provided for by law” and the second paragraph recognises that States have the
right to control the use of property by enforcing “laws”. Moreover, the rule of law, one of the
fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (Lekić
v. Slovenia, § 94; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 58; Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], § 79;
Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 147; Kurban v. Turkey, § 76).
115. The existence of a legal basis in domestic law does not suffice, in itself, to satisfy the principle
of lawfulness. In addition, the legal basis must have a certain quality, namely it must be compatible
with the rule of law and must provide freedom from or guarantees against arbitrarinesss (East West
Alliance Limited v. Ukraine, § 167; Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v. Bulgaria, § 37; Vistiņš and
Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], § 96). In this connection it should be pointed out that when speaking of
“law”, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention
refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law
(Špaček, s.r.o., v. the Czech Republic, § 54).
Divergences in the case-law may create legal uncertainty, which is incompatible with the
requirements of the rule of law (Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], § 153).
116. The principle of lawfulness also presupposes that the applicable provisions of domestic law are
sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in their application (Lekić v. Slovenia, § 95; Beyeler
v. Italy [GC] § 109; Hentrich v. France, § 42; Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 110; Ališić
and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia [GC], § 103; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 187; Hutten-Czapska
v. Poland [GC], § 163; Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], §§ 96-97).
117. As to the accessibility of law, the term “law” is to be understood in its substantive sense and
not in its formal one. Hence, the fact that certain regulations pertaining to the exercise of rights
protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were not published in official gazettes in the form
provided for by law for promulgation of legislative or regulatory instruments binding on citizens and
legal entities in general, does not prevent such regulations from being considered law if the Court is
satisfied that they were made known to the public by way of other means (Špaček, s.r.o., v. the
Czech Republic, §§ 57-60).
118. Another requirement flowing from the expression “provided for by law” is foreseeability. The
relevant law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable citizens to regulate their conduct
by foreseeing, to a degree that is reasonable under the circumstances, the consequences which a
given action may entail. Such consequences need not be foreseeable with absolute certainty since
excessive rigidity is undesirable (Centro Europa 7 S.r.1. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 141).
Accordingly, many laws are more or less vague and their interpretation and application are
questions of practice (ibid., § 141). The level of precision required of domestic legislation – which
cannot in any case provide for every eventuality – depends to a considerable degree on the content
of the law in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom
it is addressed. (ibid., § 142).

119. A law may still satisfy the requirement of foreseeability even if the person concerned has to
take appropriate legal advice to assess the consequences which a given action may entail. This is
particularly true with regard to persons carrying on a professional or commercial activity, who are
used to having to proceed with a high degree of caution when pursuing their occupation. They can,
on this account, be expected to take special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails (Lekić
v. Slovenia [GC], § 97).
120. The Court may find that the requirement of foreseeability is not met if the application or
interpretation of legislation has been unexpected, overly broad, or bordering on the arbitrary. For
instance, in Lelas v. Croatia, the applicant, a serviceman employed by the Ministry of Defense, had
complained about a delay in the payment of a special allowance to which he was entitled and asked
his commanding officer why the allowance had not been paid. The commanding officer enquired
with his superior, who contacted the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces, and eventually
informed the applicant that his claims for allowances were not disputed and that they would be paid
once funds were available. Since the allowances continued to be unpaid, the applicant started
judicial proceedings. The domestic court dismissed his complaint as statute-barred. It argued that
only the head of the Central Finance Department of the Ministry of Defense could have
acknowledged the debt, thereby interrupting the statutory limitation period. However, the domestic
court failed to indicate any legal provision that could be construed as the basis for its finding.
Consequently, the manner in which the domestic court had interpreted and applied the relevant
domestic law was not foreseeable for the applicant, who could reasonably have expected that his
commanding officer’s statements to the effect that his claims were not in dispute and that payment
was to follow once funds had been allocated, constituted acknowledgement of the debt capable of
interrupting the running of the statutory limitation period (ibid., §§ 77-78).
121. In Nešić v. Montenegro, §§ 52-53, the Court found that the applicant’s dispossession and the
State’s failure to pay compensation were not in accordance with the law because the legislative
framework regarding expropriation of coastal land lacked clarity. It was unclear what expropriation
actually meant in that context. Although the applicant had lost title to his two plots of land situated
on the seashore ex lege, it appeared that formal expropriation had still not yet taken place, and
further procedures was necessary to formalise the State’s title, as well as to determine the
compensation. The relevant domestic law provided no details as to when, and if at all, the formal
expropriation of land was obligatory. It even seemed possible under the law that no formal
expropriation would occur at all, in which case the applicant would not receive any compensation
which ran counter to other laws.
122. The requirement of foreseeability is often intertwined with the requirements of an absence of
arbitrariness and procedural safeguards. Thus, a legal norm is “foreseeable” when it affords a
measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities. Any interference
with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must, therefore, be accompanied by procedural
guarantees affording to the individual or entity concerned a reasonable opportunity of presenting
their case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures
interfering with the rights guaranteed by that provision. In ascertaining whether that condition has
been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative
procedures (Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 95; Jokela v. Finland, § 45; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, § 134;
and Stolyarova v. Russia, § 43; Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, § 82).
123. In Markus v. Latvia, § 75, the Court held that a confiscation punishment was unlawful because
the impugned domestic regulation lacked clarity and foreseeability, did not afford the necessary
procedural safeguards, and provided no protection against arbitrariness. The case concerned an
ancillary penalty of confiscation of property. However, the domestic court did not specify the
property to be confiscated, and instead applied the measure to all properties owned by the
applicant. Moreover, there was uncertainty and divergent case-law concerning the trial court’s
ability to determine the extent of the confiscation. The Court held that, where regulation leaves such

uncertainty concerning the trial court’s competence, it cannot be regarded as foreseeable and does
not provide protection against arbitrariness. It may also seriously impede a person’s ability to
present his or her case effectively before the court. Moreover, the compulsory nature of the
confiscation punishment had deprived the applicants concerned of any possibility to argue their
cases and of any prospects of success. Lastly, the exact scope of the punishment being determined
at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, by a decision that is designed to serve a different purpose,
cannot be regarded as affording the individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to
the competent authorities (ibid., § 73).
124. In the context of Article 6 of the Convention, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a
fair trial preclude, except for compelling public interest reasons, interference by the legislature with
the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (Stran
Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, § 49; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds
Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, § 112; Zielinski and
Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], § 57; Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others
v. Italy, § 76). Nevertheless, when examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, laws with
retrospective effect which were found to constitute legislative interference still conformed to the
lawfulness requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Maggio and Others v. Italy, § 60, Arras and
Others v. Italy, § 81; Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, § 104; Tokel v. Turkey,
§ 76). Measures of control of use effected on the basis of laws enacted posterior to facts giving rise
to the interference are not as such unlawful (Saliba v. Malta, §§ 39-40), if these laws were not
enacted specifically with the purpose of influencing the outcome of an individual case. Neither the
Convention nor its protocols preclude the legislature from interfering with existing contracts with
retroactive effect (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, § 50; Bäck v. Finland, § 68).
125. However, in certain circumstances, the retrospective application of legislation whose effect is
to deprive someone of a pre-existing “asset” that was part of his or her “possessions” may constitute
interference that is liable to upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest on
the one hand and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” on the other
(Maurice v. France [GC], §§ 90 and 93). This also applies to cases in which the dispute is between
private individuals and the State is not itself a party to the proceedings (Kamoy Radyo Televizyon
Yayincilik ve Organizasyon A.S. v. Turkey, § 40).
126. The principle of lawfulness entails also a duty on the part of the State or other public authority
to comply with judicial orders or decisions against it (Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, § 56; see
the chapter on Enforcement proceedings below).
3. Public or general interest

127. Any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” can only
be justified if it serves a legitimate public (or general) interest (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 113;
(Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 105).
128. The following purposes have been found by the Court to fall within the notion of public interest
within the meaning of this provision: elimination of social injustice in the housing sector (James and
Others v. the United Kingdom, § 45; Grozdanić and Gršković‑Grozdanić v. Croatia, §§ 102-103 and
113); combating the effects of a foreign-curency loan crisis particularly in the context of preventing
mass homelessness (Béla Németh v. Hungary, §§ 42-45); nationalisation of specific industries
(Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, §§ 9 and 109); adoption of land and city development
plans (Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, § 69); Cooperativa La Laurentina v. Italy, § 94; securing
land in connection with the implementation of the local land development plan (Skibińscy v. Poland,
§ 86); prevention of tax evasion (Hentrich v. France, § 39); measures to combat drug trafficking and
smuggling (Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.); protection of the interests of the victims of the crime
(Šeiko v. Lithuania, § 31); measures to restrict the consumption of alcohol (Tre Traktörer AB v.

Sweden, § 62); protection of morals (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, § 62); control of legitimate
origin of cars brought into circulation (Sildedzis v. Poland, § 50); confiscation of monies acquired
unlawfully (Honecker and Others v. Germany (dec.); the prevention of collusive practices and the
protection of the public purse and promotion of fair competition (Kurban v. Turkey, § 78); transition
from a socialist to a free-market economy (Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], §§ 103 and 105); and the smooth
operation of the justice system, with further references to the importance of administering justice
without delays which might jeopardise its effectiveness and credibility (Konstantin Stefanov v.
Bulgaria, § 64).
129. The protection of the environment is also considered to be in the public interest (G.I.E.M. S.R.L.
and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], § 295; Bahia Nova S.A. v. Spain (dec.); Chapman v. the United
Kingdom [GC], § 82). In the case of Hamer v. Belgium (§ 79) the Court noted that while none of the
Articles of the Convention is specifically designed to provide general protection of the environment
as such (Kyrtatos v. Greece, § 52), “in today’s society the protection of the environment is an
increasingly important consideration“ and that “economic considerations and even certain
fundamental rights such as the right of property should not take precedence over considerations
relating to protection of the environment, in particular where the State has enacted legislation on
the subject”. Finally, it was considered that the development of housing, both for private
commercial and public interest purposes, did not involve as strong a public interest as the protection
of the environment (Svitlana Ilchenko v. Ukraine, § 70).
130. S.A. Bio d’Ardennes v. Belgium, §§ 55-57, concerned the compulsory slaughter of numerous
animals infected with brucellosis and the Court underlined the importance for States of preventing
animal diseases and the margin of appreciation left to them in that regard.
131. Correction of errors committed by the State in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 also
falls within the notion of public interest (Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, § 57; Pyrantienė
v. Lithuania, §§ 44-48; Bečvář and Bečvářová v. the Czech Republic, § 67); including situations where
social insurance benefits have been validly acquired by individuals on the basis of individual
decisions which subsequently turned out to have been erroneous (Moskal v. Poland, § 63). More
broadly, putting an end, by way of legislative intervention, to pension advantages regarded as
unwarranted or acquired unjustly, in order to ensure greater fairness in the pension system
(Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.), § 144) has also been found to pursue the public interest.
132. Respecting the principle of legal certainty, in its res iudicata application, may, as a general rule,
be considered to be in the public interest (Grobelny v. Poland, § 66,).
133. Various regulatory measures applied by the State in the area of housing, such as rent control or
protected tenancies, have been often accepted by the Court as being in the public interest as serving
the purpose of social protection of tenants (Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, § 57; Velosa Barreto
v. Portugal, § 25; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], § 178; Amato Gauci v. Malta, § 55; Kasmi
v. Albania, § 76). In the field of housing, the obligation to pay the standing heating charge imposed
on the applicants, whose flats were disconnected from the district heating system, was considered
to pursue the legitimate aim of ensuring a safe, secure and efficient heat supply (Strezovski and
Others v. North Macedonia, § 75).
134. Conservation of the cultural heritage and, where appropriate, its sustainable use, have as their
aim, in addition to the maintenance of a certain quality of life, the preservation of the historical,
cultural and artistic roots of a region and its inhabitants. As such, they are an essential value, the
protection and promotion of which are incumbent on the public authorities (Beyeler v. Italy [GC],
§ 112; SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.); Debelianovi v. Bulgaria, § 54; Kozacioğlu v. Turkey
[GC], § 54).
135. The list of purposes which interference may serve so as to fall within the ambit of the notion of
public interest is extensive and may include various new purposes served by public policy

considerations in various factual contexts. In particular, the decision to enact laws expropriating
property (Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], § 87; Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia
[GC], § 106) or concerning social-insurance benefits will commonly involve consideration of political,
economic and social issues. The Court will respect the legislature’s judgment as to what is “in the
public interest” unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (Béláné Nagy
v. Hungary [GC], § 113).
136. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is for the national authorities
to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting
measures of deprivation of property or interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions”.
Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities
accordingly enjoy a wide margin of appreciation. For example, the margin of appreciation available
to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies will be a wide one and the Court will
respect the legislature’s judgment as to what is “in the public interest” unless that judgment is
manifestly without reasonable foundation (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 113; Papachela and
AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, § 56). Furthermore, the notion of “public interest” is necessarily extensive
(Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], § 106; R.Sz. v. Hungary, § 44; Grudić v. Serbia, § 75). The
Court normally shows deference to the Contracting States’ arguments that interference under its
examination was in the public interest and the intensity of its review in this regard is low. Hence, an
applicant’s argument that a given measure served in reality another purpose than that relied on by
the defendant Contracting Party in the context of a given case before the Court seldom has any
serious prospects of success. In any event, it is sufficient for the Court that the interference serves
the public interest, even if it is different from that expressly relied on by the Government in the
proceedings before the Court. In certain instances, the Court even identified the purpose of its own
motion (Ambruosi v. Italy, § 28; Marija Božić v. Croatia, § 58).
137. The margin of appreciation will, in particular, be wide when, for instance, laws are adopted in
the context of a change of political and economic regime (Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 91); the
adoption of policies to protect the public purse (N.K.M. v. Hungary, §§ 49 and 61); or to reallocate
funds (Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.)); or in the context of austerity measures prompted by
a major economic crisis (Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), §§ 37 and 39; and Da Conceição Mateus
and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), § 22; Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 37).
138. As a result of this deference to the domestic authorities’ appraisal, examples of where the
Court found no public interest justifying interference are rare (S.A. Dangeville v. France, §§ 47 and
53-58 – failure to pay back overpaid tax; Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland, § 56) –
annulment of a licence to run the applicants’ business without any public interest reasons relied on
by the authorities in the relevant decisions; Vassallo v. Malta, § 43 – the lapse of twenty-eight years
from the date of the taking of the property without any concrete use having been made of it in
accordance with the requirements of the initial taking, raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, in respect of the public interest requirement; and Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, § 79 – not
shown to the Court’s satisfaction that the authorities followed any genuine and consistent policy
considerations when invalidating the applicant company’s licences).
4. Proportionality and related issues (fair balance, compensation, margin of

appreciation)
139. In order to be compatible with the general rule set forth in the first sentence of the first
paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of
“possessions”, apart from being prescribed by law and in the public interest, must strike a “fair
balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of
the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (Beyeler v. Italy [GC], § 107; Ališić and Others

v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
[GC], § 108).
140. In other words, in cases involving an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court
must ascertain whether by reason of the State’s action or inaction the person concerned had to bear
a disproportionate and excessive burden. In assessing compliance with that requirement, the Court
must make an overall examination of the various interests in issue, bearing in mind that the
Convention is intended to safeguard rights that are “practical and effective”. In that context, it
should be stressed that uncertainty – be it legislative, administrative or arising from practices
applied by the authorities – is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State’s conduct
(Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 151).
141. The search for this balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention and is also reflected in
the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, § 69; Brumărescu
v. Romania [GC], § 78; Saliba v. Malta, § 36; Bistrović v. Croatia, § 34).
142. The issue of whether a fair balance has been struck becomes relevant only once it has been
established that the interference in question served the public interest, satisfied the requirement of
lawfulness and was not arbitrary (Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 58; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], § 107).
143. The issue is most often decisive for the determination of whether there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court conducts normally an in-depth analysis of the proportionality
requirement, unlike the more limited review of whether the interference pursued a matter of public
interest (see the chapter on Interference in the public interest above).
144. The purpose of the proportionality test is to establish first how and to what extent the
applicant was restricted in the exercise of the right affected by the interference complained of and
what were the adverse consequences of the restriction imposed on the exercise of the applicant’s
right on his/her situation. Subsequently, this impact is balanced against the importance of the public
interest served by the interference.
145. Numerous factors are taken into consideration by the Court in this examination. There is no
fixed list of such factors. They vary from case to case, depending on the facts of the case and the
nature of the interference concerned.
146. For instance, in the case Kurban v. Turkey, §§ 81 and 86, the Court noted that the margin of
appreciation enjoyed by Contracting States, when the issue involves an assessment of candidates for
public procurement and as regards the policy choices as to the mandatory or discretionary exclusion
of candidates, is quite broad, though the fair balance principle must still apply.
147. Generally, where a public-interest issue is at stake, it is incumbent on the public authorities to
act in good time, and in an appropriate and consistent manner (Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı
v. Turkey, § 46; Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, § 102). The Court has regard to the conduct of the parties
to the proceedings as a whole, including the steps taken by the State (Beyeler v. Italy [GC], § 114;
Bistrović v. Croatia, § 35).
148. Some typical factors for the examination of the fair balance test in the context of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 are as follows.
a. Procedural factors
149. Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural requirements, it has been
construed to mean that persons affected by a measure interfering with their “possessions” must be
afforded a reasonable opportunity to put their case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of
effectively challenging those measures, pleading, as the case might be, illegality or arbitrary and
unreasonable conduct (G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], § 302; Yildirim v. Italy (dec.);
AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, §§ 55 and 58-60; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, § 46; Arcuri and

Others v. Italy (dec.); Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.)). These procedural guarantees are inherent in
the principle of lawfulness Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], § 95) (see the sub-chapter on the principle of
lawfulness above).
150. In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive
view of the applicable procedures (AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, § 55; Bowler International Unit
v. France, §§ 44-45; Jokela v. Finland, § 45; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, § 59; Microintelect
OOD v. Bulgaria, § 44).
151. In cases where the applicants did not have the possibility of effectively challenging the
measure, the Court has found that an excessive burden had been borne by them (Hentrich v. France,
§ 49; Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary, § 59; and Uzan and Others v. Turkey, § 215). The Court
checks whether the procedure applied provided the applicant a fair possibility of defending his or
her interests (Bäck v. Finland, § 63). A violation was found on account of a refusal by the receiver of
a credit union to grant its directors access to the union’s accounting documents to enable them to
show that it was financially sound (Družstevni Záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic,
§§ 94-95). The fact of whether major arguments advanced by the applicants were carefully
examined by the authorities is also relevant (Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, § 74; Novoseletskiy
v. Ukraine, § 111; Bistrović v. Croatia, § 37). The operation of unchallengeable presumptions of
benefit resulting from expropriation (Papachelas v. Greece [GC], §§ 53-54), and presumptions used
in the context of calculating compensation for expropriation (Katikaridis and Others v. Greece, § 49;
Efstathiou and Michailidis & Co. Motel Amerika v. Greece, § 33) were held against the Governments.
When an individual’s property is subject to expropriation, there must be a procedure which ensures
an overall assessment of the consequences of the expropriation, including the granting of
compensation in relation to the value of the expropriated property, the determination of the holders
of the right to compensation and any other issue relating to the expropriation, as well as the costs of
the proceedings (Alfa Glass Anonymi Emboriki Etairia Yalopinakon v. Greece, § 36).
152. A failure on the part of the national authorities to carry out the balancing exercise between the
private interests involved in the case and the public interest may also be held against the respondent
State (Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, § 74). A violation was found in a case where all life savings
generated by employment were confiscated from a person who had obtained that employment
using a false passport. The domestic courts failed to examine whether the confiscation order had
maintained a fair balance between the property rights and the public interest. Hence, the failure by
a domestic court to make the proportionality analysis can result in a breach of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (Paulet v. the United Kingdom, §§ 68-69). Similarly, an automatic, general and inflexible
protective measure of uncertain duration can result in a violation (Uzan and Others v. Turkey, § 193).
153. The length of time it took to challenge the measures restricting the applicant’s rights are also
taken into consideration. In Luordo v. Italy, § 70, where there was no justification for restricting the
applicant’s right for the full duration of the bankruptcy proceedings. While, in principle, it is
necessary to deprive the bankrupt of the right to administer the “possessions” in order to achieve
the aim of these proceedings, the necessity will diminish with the passage of time and the excessive
length of the bankruptcy proceedings. In Uzan and Others v. Turkey, § 207, one of the factors
deemed relevant by the Court was that the relevant restrictions on the applicants’ property lasted
roughly 10 years or more.
b. Choice of measures
154. One of the elements of the fair balance test is whether other, less intrusive measures existed
that could reasonably have been resorted to by the public authorities in the pursuance of the public
interest. However, their possible existence does not in itself render the contested legislation
unjustified. Provided that the legislature remains within the bounds of its margin of appreciation, it
is not for the Court to say whether the legislation represented the best solution for dealing with the

problem or whether the legislature’s discretion should have been exercised in another way (James
and Others v. United Kingdom, § 51; Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), § 48).
155. It may also be relevant whether it would have been possible to achieve the same objective by
less invasive interference with the applicant’s rights and whether the authorities examined the
possibility of applying these less intrusive solutions (OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia,
§§ 651-654; Vaskrsić v. Slovenia, § 83).
156. Even when the Government had given no specific reasons as to exactly why the measure in
question had been the only appropriate measure for achieving their desired social and economic
goals, whether it seriously considered other means for achieving them or assessed the
proportionality of the measure to the aims sought, the Court was prepared to accept that the reason
for the choice of the measure may have been implicit at the beginning (Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura
v. Ukraine, § 122). The Court has also taken into account the fact that no other Council of Europe
member State, including those in a similar position, had in place a similar measure (ibid., § 127).
c. Substantive issues relevant for the fair balance test

157. In certain cases the fair balance test includes a question whether the special circumstances of
the case were sufficiently taken into consideration by the State, including whether expropriation of
part of a property affected the value or amenities of the non-expropriated part belonging to the
applicant (Azas v. Greece, §§ 51-53; Interoliva ABEE v. Greece, §§ 31-33). The failure to do so may
give rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases where the nature of the construction in
the vicinity of the applicant’s property had evidently contributed directly to the substantial
depreciation of the value of the remaining property, for instance where public roads or other
constructions were built in the close vicinity of the remaining land (Ouzounoglou v. Greece, § 30;
Bistrović v. Croatia, §§ 42-44).
158. The application of an irrefutable presumption that the value of the applicant’s remaining
property had increased as a result of expropriation and that the applicant had therefore benefited
from it was held against the respondent State in the context of the examination of proportionality
(Papachelas v. Greece [GC], §§ 53-54).
159. When scrutinising the proportionality of an interference with an applicant’s right to peaceful
enjoyment of “possessions”, the state of uncertainty in which the applicant might find himself as a
result of delays attributable to the authorities is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the
State’s conduct in such litigation (Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, § 54;
Broniowski v. Poland [GC], §§ 151 and 185; Barcza and Others v. Hungary, § 47; Frendo Randon and
Others v. Malta, § 55; Hunguest Zrt v. Hungary, §§ 25 and 27; Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura v. Ukraine,
§§ 91 and 106).
160. In cases where interference did not consist in expropriation the Court will also examine
whether the laws allowed for some form of redress for restrictions which lasted for a certain period
of time (a contrario, Skibińscy v. Poland, §§ 93-95); whether the interference was prohibitive or
oppressive (Allianz-Slovenska-Poistovna, A.S., and Others v. Slovakia (dec.); Konstantin Stefanov
v. Bulgaria, § 67); whether the State was not accorded a preferential treatment in the context of civil
proceedings, putting an individual at a disadvantage (Zouboulidis v. Greece (no. 2), §§ 32 and 35) –
violation on account of shorter period of prescription in favour of the State); whether the value of
property was established under the same rules for the tax purposes and for the purposes of
compensation for expropriation to be paid by the State (Jokela v. Finland, §§ 62 and 65 – violation on
account of the former being established as much higher than the latter).
161. Temporary character of measures complained of is normally to the advantage of the State (Da
Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), § 29; Savickas and Others v. Lithuania
(dec.), § 92).

162. Where an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s “possessions” was
caused in the context of a rectification of an error committed by the public authority (which, as it has
been stated previously, serves the public interest), the principle of good governance may not only
impose on the authorities an obligation to act promptly in correcting their mistake (Moskal
v. Poland, § 69; Paplauskienė v. Lithuania, § 49), in an appropriate manner and with the utmost
consistency (Beyeler v. Italy [GC], § 120; Romeva v. North Macedonia, § 58; Grobelny v. Poland, § 68;
Belova v. Russia, § 37; Seregin and Others v. Russia,* § 94; Gavrilova and Others v. Russia,* § 74;
Semenov v. Russia,* § 59; Casarin v. Italy,* § 68; Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, § 74), but
also such errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned, especially where
no other conflicting private interest is at stake (Gashi v. Croatia, § 40; Gladysheva v. Russia, § 80;
Pyrantienė v. Lithuania, § 70; Moskal v. Poland, § 73; Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, § 74; S.C.
Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania, § 48; Seregin and Others v. Russia,*
§ 94; Gavrilova and Others v. Russia,* § 74; and Semenov v. Russia,* § 59). The authorities should be
able to correct their mistakes, but not in a situation where the individual concerned is required to
bear an excessive burden (Belova v. Russia, § 37; Kurban v. Turkey, § 82; Muharrem Güneş and
Others v. Turkey, § 74).
163. In Belova v. Russia, §§ 40-45, the Court determined that it is hardly open to the State to claim
that it did not know that its property had been lost due to mismanagement, but that an acquirer of
property should carefully investigate its origin in order to avoid possible confiscation claims. The
Court thus found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in a situation where the applicant could have
discovered that the property she was buying was the subject of a dispute and where the State had
legitimate and significant public interests in the contested property for the purposes of hosting the
Olympics and protecting nature.
164. The three complementary cases of Seregin and Others v. Russia,* Gavrilova and Others
v. Russia,* and Semenov v. Russia* concerned the general issue of reconciling the transfer of
properties to good faith buyers in circumstances where the buyers, who had not been at fault, were
forced to bear the consequences of a situation that had been solely attributable to the domestic
system or to the authorities’ errors or omissions, and in the absence of any form of compensation
for the deprivation of their properties. More specifically, the issue arose in the context of the
annulment of private property deeds in favour of municipalities on the ground that the initial
property transfers – in the form of privatisations – had been unlawful (Seregin and Others v. Russia,*
§ 4); the retroactive annulment of title deeds over plots of land classified as “forestry resources” due
to the authorities’ errors (Gavrilova and Others v. Russia,* § 1); and the annulment of the applicant’s
title to a plot of land in favour of the municipality at the request of the public prosecutor (Semenov
v. Russia,* § 1). In each case, the Court found that the required fair balance between the
requirements of the public interest and the need to protect the applicants’ right to property had
been upset so that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Seregin and Others v.
Russia,* § 111; Gavrilova and Others v. Russia,* § 87; Semenov v. Russia,* § 72).
165. The case Kanevska v. Ukraine (dec.), §§ 46-52, concerned a property dispute between private
parties over a flat. The applicant was the bona fide purchaser of the flat, which, however, had been
sold several times without the initial owner’s knowledge or consent. A criminal case was opened in
respect of fraud. The domestic courts eventually found in favour of the initial owner of the flat. The
Court noted that the domestic courts in essence had to balance conflicting private interests over the
disputed property. Because no arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness was apparent in the
domestic courts’ ruling, the Court considered that the fact that the domestic courts eventually found
in favour of the initial owner of the flat did not as such engage the responsibility of the State under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The State did not have an obligation to put in place a regulatory
framework which would prevent any fraudulent act at all during the registration of real-property
transactions: rather the State’s obligation included a requirement to put in place a regulatory
framework which would provide for remedial measures when fraud did occur. Since the applicant

had at her disposal legal remedies to protect her rights at the domestic level, there was no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
d. Issues concerning the applicant

166. One of the significant factors for the balancing test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is whether
the applicant attempted to take advantage of a weakness or a loophole in the system (National &
Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the
United Kingdom, § 109; OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others
v. France, §§ 69 and 71). Similarly, in G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], § 301, the Court
noted that the degree of culpability or negligence on the part of the applicants or, at the very least,
the relationship between their conduct and the offence in question may be taken into account in
order to assess whether a confiscation was proportionate. A person’s qualification as an accountant
was one of the decisive reasons for deciding that reimbursing excess contributions without interest
was proportionate (Taşkaya v. Turkey (dec.), §§ 49-50). In certain cases the applicant’s personal
vulnerability is also taken into consideration, as in Pyrantienė v. Lithuania, § 62, where the applicant
was of pensionable age and suffered from long-term disability). An obligation imposed on the
applicant to repay benefits already received in reliance on an administrative decision, in her good
faith and where the authorities had made a mistake, while not taking into account her health and
financial situation, was considered to be disproportionate (Čakarević v. Croatia, §§ 82-90; see also
Casarin v. Italy,* § 74).
167. The Court may also examine whether the measure complained of targeted only a certain group
of individuals who were singled out, or was generally applicable (Hentrich v. France, § 47; R.Sz.
v. Hungary, § 60).
168. It is also relevant whether the applicant could reasonably have been aware of the legal
limitations on his property in situations where he was prevented, for example, from building another
house on his property or from changing its use, or lost the “possessions“ (Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden
(no. 1), §§ 60-61; Z.A.N.T.E. – Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece, § 53; and Depalle v. France [GC], § 86 – for
the purposes of determination of whether the applicant’s rights were protected) and, in particular,
whether he was aware of these restrictions when buying the property concerned. In several cases
the Court has accepted a total lack of compensation when the owner knew, or ought to have known,
or reasonably would have been aware of the possibility of future restrictions. In Fredin v. Sweden
(no. 1); §§ 12, 16 and 54, the environmental law provided for the revocation of a mining licence
without compensation after the expiry of ten years. It had already been in force for several years
when the applicant had initiated the investment. In Łącz v. Poland (dec.), relevant excerpts from the
local development plan concerning the road construction were appended to the sale contract. The
Court therefore concluded that the applicants acquired the property being fully aware of its
particular legal status and that in the circumstances the State cannot be held responsible for the
impugned difficulties with the sale of the property. The same approach has been applied in the
social insurance context (Mauriello v. Italy (dec.)).
169. In Uzan and Others v. Turkey, § 212 the Court took into account the absence of evidence to
suggest that the applicants could have been involved in any fraud.
e. Compensation for the interference with property as an element of fair balance

170. Compensation terms are material to the assessment of fair balance and, notably, whether the
contested measure does not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants (The Holy
Monasteries v. Greece, § 71; Platakou v. Greece, § 55). However, the importance of compensation
varies in the Court’s assessment depending on the rules at stake.
171. The taking of property under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value, will normally constitute a

disproportionate interference and a total lack of compensation can be considered justifiable only in
exceptional circumstances (Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], § 89).
However, in a situation where a measure controlling the use of property is in issue, the lack of
compensation is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether a fair balance has
been achieved (Depalle v. France [GC], § 91). Similar considerations apply when the general clause is
at stake (Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, § 69; see at the end of this sub-chapter).
172. In respect of the deprivation of property, what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances
of a given case, but a wide margin of appreciation is applicable to the determination of the amount
of compensation. The Court’s power of review is limited to ascertaining whether the choice of
compensation terms falls outside the State’s wide margin of appreciation in this domain (James and
Others v. the United Kingdom, § 54). The Court will respect the legislature’s judgment as to the
compensation due for expropriation unless it is manifestly without a reasonable foundation (Lithgow
and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 122).
173. While it is true that in many cases of lawful expropriation only full compensation can be
regarded as reasonably related to the value of the property, that rule is not without its exceptions
(Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], § 78; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1)
[GC], § 96). The provision does therefore not, guarantee a right to full compensation in all
circumstances, since legitimate objectives of “public interest” (such as those pursued in measures of
economic reform or designed to achieve greater social justice) may call for less than reimbursement
of the full market value (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 54; Papachelas v. Greece [GC],
§ 48; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, §§ 70-71; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd
v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 54; Urbárska Obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, § 115).
174. The balance between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the
protection of individual fundamental rights mentioned above is generally achieved where the
compensation paid to the person whose property has been taken is reasonably related to its
“market” value, as determined at the time of the expropriation (Pincová and Pinc v. Czech Republic,
§ 53, Gashi v. Croatia, § 41; Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], § 111; Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just
satisfaction) [GC], § 103; Moreno Diaz Peña and Others v. Portugal, § 76).
175. The adequacy of compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to
various circumstances that increased its value, such as that the value of the expropriated property
consisted not only of land but also of business activities, for example a quarry, that were taking place
on it (Werra Naturstein GmbH & Co Kg v. Germany, § 46; Azas v. Greece, §§ 52-53; Athanasiou and
Others v. Greece, § 24). Losing the main source of income because of expropriation may mean that
the applicant had borne an excessive individual burden if the authorities did not address the issue of
whether the compensation granted would have covered the actual loss involved in deprivation of
means of subsistence or at least would have been sufficient to acquire equivalent land within the
area in which the applicant lived (Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia, § 70).
176. Unreasonable delay in payment of compensation is another relevant factor (Almeida Garrett,
Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, § 54; Czajkowska and Others v. Poland, § 60). The Court
found against the State in a case where the fact that the public authorities determining the amount
of compensation did not take account of the fact that over twenty years had elapsed and the
applicant had not yet received any compensation (Schembri and Others v. Malta, § 43). A delay of
seventy-five years in payment of compensation gave rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Malama v. Greece, § 51).
177. Abnormally lengthy delays in the payment of compensation for expropriation in the context of
hyperinflation led to increased financial loss for the person whose land has been expropriated,
placing him in a position of uncertainty (Akkus v. Turkey, § 29; Aka v. Turkey, § 49). Even if at the
time when the Court examines the case a part of the compensation was already paid, the delay in
paying compensation in full remains problematic (Czajkowska and Others v. Poland, § 62).

178. The applicant’s personal and social situation should be taken into account in determining the
compensation (Pyrantienė v. Lithuania, § 62). Failure to take into consideration the applicant’s good
faith when she acquired the property subsequently expropriated operated to the detriment of the
State (ibid., § 60).
179. The fact that persons to be expropriated in the future continued to use the property during the
proceedings in which the amount of compensation to be paid was determined does not exempt the
State from the obligation to fix compensation in an amount reasonably related to its value (Yetiş and
Others v. Turkey, § 52).
180. In certain situations a refusal to grant special indemnities can amount to a violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (Azas v. Greece, §§ 52-53; Athanasiou and Others v. Greece, § 24). For example, in
cases of partial expropriation, where a motorway was built in the near vicinity of an applicant’s
house, such interference might warrant the granting of additional compensation on account of the
limitation on the use of the house. The nature of the construction had evidently contributed more
directly to the substantial depreciation of the value of the remaining property (Bistrović v. Croatia,
§§ 40-42; Ouzounoglou v. Greece, § 30).
181. Where expropriation was a result of broad economic reforms or measures designed to achieve
greater social justice, the margin of appreciation accorded to the States will normally be broad also
in respect of the determination of the amount of compensation to be awarded to applicants. A
decision to enact legislation regarding the nationalisation of a whole industry will commonly involve
consideration of various issues on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ
widely. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs and resources, the national
authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what measures
are appropriate in this area, and consequently the margin of appreciation in deciding whether to
deprive an owner of his or her property and to lay down the terms and conditions of the
compensation should be a wide one (Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, §§ 121-22).
Similarly, in James and Others v. the United Kingdom, §§ 68-9, the issue was whether, in the context
of leasehold-reform legislation, the conditions empowering long-term leasehold tenants to acquire
their property struck a fair balance. The Court found that they did, holding that the context was one
of social and economic reform in which the burden borne by the freeholders was not unreasonable,
even though the amounts received by the interested parties were less than the full market value of
the property.
182. A fortiori, less than full compensation may also be considered necessary where property is
taken for the purposes of “such fundamental changes of a country’s constitutional system as the
transition from monarchy to republic” (Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], § 87). The
State has a wide margin of appreciation when enacting laws in the context of a change of political
and economic regime (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35). This principle was reaffirmed in Broniowski
v. Poland [GC], § 182, in the context of the country’s transition towards a democratic regime. The
Court has specified that rules regulating ownership relations within the country “involving a wide-
reaching but controversial legislative scheme with significant economic impact for the country as a
whole” could involve decisions restricting compensation for the taking or restitution of property to a
level below its market value (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 98).
183. The Court has also reiterated these principles regarding the enactment of laws in “the
exceptional context of German reunification” (Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], §§ 77
and 111-12) and where expropriation was carried out under legislation in force during a transitional
period between two regimes which had been passed by a non-democratically elected parliament
(Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], §§ 113 and 117). In the latter case, the unique nature of the
general political and legal context of German reunification had justified a total lack of compensation.
A distinction was drawn between the case of Jahn and Others and Vistiņš and Perepjolkins: the latter
was not a case where a manifestly unjust situation that emerged in the process of denationalisation

had to be remedied by the legislature ex post facto within a relatively short time in order to restore
social justice. The lack of sufficient compensation was therefore found not to be justified in Vistiņš
and Perepjolkins v. Latvia, §§ 123, 127-130).
184. In addition, in cases where property was taken unlawfully, compensation should still have a
compensatory role as opposed to a punitive or dissuasive one vis-à-vis the respondent State (Guiso-
Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], § 103). According to the approach adopted by the Grand
Chamber in that case, in order to reflect the lapse of time, the market value of property at the time
of taking should be converted to current value to offset the effects of inflation and (simple statutory)
interest applied to offset the period for which the applicant has been deprived of the property (ibid.,
§ 105). In addition, the Grand Chamber assessed the loss of opportunities sustained by the
applicants following the expropriation (ibid., § 107).
185. Furthermore, where a measure controlling the use of property is in issue, the lack of
compensation is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether a fair balance has
been achieved but is not of itself sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis v. Greece, §§ 44 and 45). In Depalle v. France [GC],
§ 91, where the applicants occupied houses built on land falling within the category of maritime
public property, the Court held, having regard to the rules governing public property, and
considering that the applicant could not have been unaware of the principle that no compensation
was payable, clearly stated in every decision, that the lack of compensation could not be regarded as
a measure disproportionate to the control of the use of the applicant’s property, carried out in
pursuit of the general interest.
186. In S.A. Bio d’Ardennes v. Belgium, §§ 47-49 and 51, where the compulsory slaughter of
numerous animals infected with brucellosis amounted to a control of use, the Court held that the
applicant company had not had to bear an individual and excessive burden on account of the refusal
to compensate it for the slaughter of its cattle.
187. Finally, for interferences with the applicants’ rights which were analysed under the general
clause of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has adopted a somehow similar approach to that
concerning “the control of use” category of cases (Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, §§ 42 and 47-
48; Pialopoulos and Others v. Greece, §§ 57-61). In the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden
(§ 69), the Court found that the applicants bore an individual and excessive burden which could have
been rendered legitimate only if they had had the possibility of seeking a reduction of the time-limits
or of claiming compensation.
C. Positive obligations on member States

188. The obligation to respect the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 incorporates
both negative and positive obligations.
189. The essential object of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is to protect a person against unjustified
interference by the State with the peaceful enjoyment of his or her “possessions” (negative
obligations). However, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, each Contracting Party “shall secure
to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention”. The
discharge of this general duty may entail positive obligations inherent in ensuring the effective
exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
those positive obligations may require the State to take the measures necessary to protect the right
of property (Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 143; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, § 96; Keegan
v. Ireland, § 49; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, § 31; Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 100;
Likvidējamā p/s Selga and Vasiļevska v. Latvia (dec.), §§ 94-113).

190. Genuine, effective exercise of the right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not
depend merely on the State’s duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection,
particularly where there is a direct link between the measures an applicant may legitimately expect
from the authorities and his effective enjoyment of his “possessions” (Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC],
§ 134; Dabić v. Croatia,* § 51), even in cases involving litigation between private individuals or
companies (Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, § 96; Antonopoulou v. Greece (dec.), § 55).
191. In the case of Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], §§ 135-136, which concerned the destruction of many
houses and the death of several persons resulting from the States’ dangerous activities (a methane
gas explosion which had built up in a rubbish tip) in an illegal settlement, the Court found that the
domestic authorities had not complied with their positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 since they failed to do everything within their power to protect the applicant’s proprietary
interest in the light of a risk they knew or ought to have known (Kurşun v. Turkey, § 115). In
particular, the authorities failed to inform the inhabitants of the danger posed by the tip in the
settlement, which had been ascertained in an expert report years before, but also did not take any
practical measures to avoid such risk, such as the timely installation of a gas-extraction system.
192. A distinction, however, must be drawn between the positive obligations under Article 2 of the
Convention and those under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. While the fundamental
importance of the right to life requires that the scope of the positive obligations under Article 2
includes a duty to do everything within the authorities’ power in the sphere of disaster relief for the
protection of that right, the obligation to protect the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions,
which is not absolute, cannot extend further than what is reasonable in the circumstances
(Budayeva and Others v. Russia, § 175, for natural hazards beyond human control; Kurşun v. Turkey,
§ 121, for property damage resulting from a dangerous activity but not involving injury/deaths).
Likewise, there was no positive obligation on the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the
absence of State negligence, and given the applicant’s own responsibility as an entrepreneur as well
as the specificity of a natural hazard beyond human control such as a landslide (Vladimirov
v. Bulgaria (dec.), §§ 37 and 39-41).
193. A distinction must also be made between the State´s positive obligations as regards the duty to
investigate property destruction, on the one hand, and loss of life, on the other. In particular, the
Court has held that the obligation to investigate is less exacting for less serious crimes, such as those
involving property, than for more serious violent crimes and especially those which would fall within
the scope of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In cases involving less serious crimes the State will
only fail to fulfil its positive obligation in that respect where flagrant and serious deficiencies in the
criminal investigation or prosecution can be identified (Blumberga v. Latvia, § 67; Abukauskai v.
Lithuania, § 56).
194. In Blumberga, the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s property rights was not
carried out in a manner that could have put her life or health in danger (ibid., § 6), whereas in
Abukauskai, the domestic authorities considered that the damage to the applicants´ property had
been undertaken “in a dangerous manner” but the applicants failed to allege, throughout the
domestic proceedings and in their initial submissions to the Court, that they had suffered any
injuries, or that their life or health had been at risk because of the dangerous nature of the arson
attack (ibid., §§ 58-61). In neither of these two cases, the Court found it established that there were
had been any flagrant and serious deficiencies in the criminal investigations. It further recalled that
the State would only fail to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if the lack of
prospects of success of civil proceedings is the direct consequence of exceptionally serious and
flagrant deficiencies in the conduct of criminal proceedings arising out of the same set of facts
(Blumberga v. Latvia, § 68).
195. In Antonopoulou v. Greece (dec.), the applicant had taken out a mortgage in Swiss francs in
order to benefit from a favorable exchange rate. A clause in the contract provided that monthly

repayment of the loan was to be made on the basis of the exchange rate at the time of repayment
and not at the time the loan was taken. The applicant was later unable to repay the loan because the
strengthening of the Swiss franc against the euro, as a result of a global financial crisis, had increased
the loan amount by about 60%. The applicant argued unsuccessfully before the domestic courts that
the repayment clause was abusive. The Court noted that domestic law offered the applicant
adequate remedies to assert her rights relating to the enjoyment of property, including the
possibility of bringing an action for annulment of her obligations under the contract before the civil
courts and the possibility of seeking renegotiation or even termination of the contract on the basis
of the Civil Code (ibid., § 82). Furthermore, the applicant could have asked the bank at any time to
convert the currency of the loan into euros or could have insured herself against the risk of the
increase in monthly repayments (ibid.). The Court concluded that the legal framework put in place
by the State provided the applicant with a mechanism enabling her to ensure respect for her rights
guaranteed to her by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that the State had therefore fulfilled its positive
obligations under this Article (ibid., § 84 ).
196. The boundaries between the State’s positive and negative obligations under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 do not lend themselves to precise definition. The applicable principles are
nonetheless similar. Whether the case is analysed in terms of a positive duty of the State or in terms
of interference by a public authority which needs to be justified, the criteria to be applied do not
differ in substance. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the
competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. It also holds true that the
aims mentioned in that provision may be of some relevance in assessing whether a balance between
the demands of the public interest involved and the applicant’s fundamental right of property has
been struck. In both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the
steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention (Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 144;
Keegan v. Ireland, § 49; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], §§ 98; Ališić and Others
[GC], § 101; Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 110; Saraç and Others v. Turkey,* § 71).
197. Accordingly, in many cases, having regard to their particular circumstances, the Court considers
it unnecessary to categorise its examination of the case strictly as being under the head of positive
or negative obligations of the respondent States; to the contrary, it will determine whether the
conduct of the respondent States – regardless of whether that conduct may be characterised as an
interference or as a failure to act, or a combination of both – was justifiable in view of the principles
of lawfulness, legitimate aim and “fair balance” (Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 101; Kotov v. Russia
[GC], § 102; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 146; Skórits v. Hungary, §§ 37-38).
198. This was also the case in Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia
and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 101, where the applicants complained of
their inability to withdraw their deposits from their bank accounts, which had become unavailable
owing to such factors as the lack of funds in the relevant banks, the imposition by law of a freezing
of the accounts and the failure by national authorities to take measures with a view to enabling
deposit holders in the applicants’ situation to dispose of their savings. In such circumstances, the
Court found it unnecessary to categorise its examination of the case strictly as being under the head
of positive or negative obligations of the respondent States.
199. In a number of cases concerning positive obligations arising under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
the Court stressed in particular the importance of the principle of good governance. This principle
requires that where an issue pertaining to the general interest is at stake, especially when it affects
fundamental human rights, including property rights, the public authorities must act promptly and in
an appropriate and above all consistent manner (Beyeler v. Italy [GC], § 120; Megadat.com SRL
v. Moldova, § 72; Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, § 71; Moskal v. Poland, § 72; Maria Mihalache v. Romania,
§ 70; Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, § 74). This obligation is relevant both in the context of

negative and positive obligations which Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 imposes on the State. The good
governance principle should not, as a general rule, prevent the authorities from correcting
occasional mistakes, even those resulting from their own negligence. However, the need to correct
an old “wrong” should not disproportionately interfere with a new right which has been acquired by
an individual relying on the legitimacy of the public authority’s action in good faith (Beinarovič and
Others v. Lithuania, § 140; Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, §75). In the context of the
cancellation of a property title given in error, the principle of good governance may also require the
payment of adequate compensation to the long-term good faith holder of the title, or other
appropriate redress (Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, §§ 75-81).
1. Horizontal effect – interferences by private persons

200. The “positive measures of protection” to which the Court refers concern not only interferences
by the State, but also by private persons, and they can be of a preventive or remedial nature.
201. Indeed, the Court has found that even in horizontal relations there may be public-interest
considerations involved which may impose some obligations on the State (Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2),
§ 39; Saraç and Others v. Turkey,* § 70). Therefore, certain measures necessary to protect the right
of property may be required even in cases involving litigation between individuals or companies
(Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, § 96; Saraç and Others v. Turkey,* § 72; Kanevska v. Ukraine (dec.),
§ 45).
202. However, where the case concerns ordinary economic relations between private parties such
positive obligations are much more limited. Thus, the Court has stressed on many occasions that
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention cannot be interpreted as imposing any general
obligation on the Contracting States to cover the debts of private entities (Kotov v. Russia [GC],
§ 111; Anokhin v. Russia (dec.)).
203. In particular, when an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” is
perpetrated by a private individual, a positive obligation arises for the State to ensure in its domestic
legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies are
provided whereby the victim of an interference can vindicate his rights (Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 113;
Blumberga v. Latvia, § 67; Papachela and AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, § 54; Saraç and Others v. Turkey,*
§ 73; Dabić v. Croatia,* § 52; Kanevska v. Ukraine (dec.), § 45). This includes, where appropriate, the
right to claim damages in respect of any loss sustained (Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 113; Blumberga
v. Latvia, § 67; Dabić v. Croatia,* § 52). It follows that the measures which the State can be required
to take in such a context can be preventive or remedial (Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 113; Saraç and
Others v. Turkey,* § 73).
204. For instance, in Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2), where the applicant could no longer claim the
deposits on his bank account since for over twenty years he had not made any transaction on it, the
Court held that the State had a positive obligation to protect citizens and to require that banks, in
view of the potentially adverse consequences of limitation periods, should inform the holders of
dormant accounts when the limitation period is due to expire and thus afford them the possibility to
stop the limitation period running. Not requiring any information of this kind to be provided was
liable to upset the fair balance that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of
the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.
205. The Court has also held that States have an obligation to protect the property rights of
individuals as against claims made by religious orders when those claims result in the imposition of a
disproportionate burden on the individuals. Thus, in Liamberi and Others v. Greece, §§ 86-88, the
Court found that granting a monastery automatic and absolute rights to the property of a deceased
monk, when such a grant excluded from consideration the importance of protecting individual
interests in the property, constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1. In this case, the relevant
elements consisted of the carrying out of numerous acts of possession by the ancestors of the

applicants over several decades (including the payment of property and local taxes and inheritance
taxes), in the absence of any acts of possession carried out by the monastery or of the registration of
its claims over the disputed property (ibid.).
206. Finally, in Dabić v. Croatia,* §§ 53-59 the damage to the applicant’s house and its plundering
occurred in the context of the return of refugees and displaced persons where specific obligations
might arise for the State to prevent the destruction or looting of contested or abandoned property.
The Court found that the responsibility for loss resulting from damage to and the looting of the
applicant’s house was on, not only with the direct perpetrator but, on the State, which had initially
also seized the property. Given that the domestic courts had held that the State was not liable for
such loss and dismissed the applicant’s action for compensation, the State has not discharged its
positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
2. Remedial measures
207. With specific reference to the remedial measures which the State can be required to provide in
certain circumstances, the Court has held that they include an appropriate legal mechanism allowing
the aggrieved party to assert its rights effectively. Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no
explicit procedural requirements, the existence of positive obligations of a procedural character
under this provision was recognised by the Court both in cases involving State authorities (Jokela
v. Finland, § 45; Zehentner v. Austria, § 73) and in cases between private parties only.
208. Thus, in cases belonging to the latter category the Court has held that States are under an
obligation to afford judicial procedures that offer the necessary procedural guarantees and
therefore enable the domestic courts and tribunals to adjudicate effectively and fairly any disputes
between private persons (Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 114; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, § 96;
Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], § 83; Freitag v. Germany, § 54; Shesti Mai Engineering OOD
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 79; Plechanow v. Poland, § 100; Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine, § 51;
Antonopoulou v. Greece (dec.), § 57). In cases where damage to property arose from a dangerous
activity of a private person, the State could either set up a criminal, civil or administrative remedy
(Kurşun v. Turkey, §§ 123-124).
209. This principle applies with all the more force when it is the State itself which is in dispute with
an individual. Accordingly, serious deficiencies in the handling of such disputes may raise an issue
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Plechanow v. Poland, § 100). For example, in Dabić v. Croatia,* §
55, the Court held that when the authorities seize property, they also take on a duty of care in
respect of it and are liable for the damage and/or loss of such property. In such cases the actual
damage sustained should not be more extensive than that which is inevitable, if it is to be
compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In consequence, when seizing property, the authorities
must not only take the reasonable measures necessary for its preservation, but domestic legislation
must also provide for the possibility of taking proceedings against the State for compensation for
any damage resulting from the failure to keep the property in relatively good condition.
210. State responsibility for the failure to provide an adequate remedial action has been found in
the context of enforcement of judgment debts: restitution of property (Păduraru v. Romania, § 112);
payment of compensation for expropriation (Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others
v. Portugal, §§ 109-111); enforcement of court orders for the eviction of tenants and the
repossession of dwellings (Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], §§ 43-59; Matheus v. France, §§ 69-71;
Lo Tufo v. Italy, § 53; Prodan v. Moldova, § 61). State responsibility was also invoked in Papachela
and AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, §§ 57-58 and 62-64, in which the Greek Government failed to evict
migrants and others who had taken over a hotel belonging to the applicants despite a court order to
the contrary.

3. Enforcement proceedings
211. The positive obligations of the State have been extensively relied on in the context of
enforcement proceedings against both the State and private debtors. This means, in particular, that
States are under a positive obligation to organise a system for enforcement of judgments that is
effective both in law and in practice and ensure that the procedures enshrined in the legislation for
the enforcement of final judgments are complied with without undue delay (Fuklev v. Ukraine, § 91).
212. Where an applicant complains about the inability to enforce a court award in his or her favour,
the extent of the State’s obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 varies depending on whether
the debtor is the State or a private person (Anokhin v. Russia (dec.); Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia,
§ 183).
213. When it is the State which is the debtor, the Court’s case-law usually insists on the State
complying with the respective court decision both fully and timeously (Anokhin v. Russia (dec.);
Burdov v. Russia, §§ 33-42). The burden to ensure compliance with a judgment against the State lies
primarily with the State authorities starting from the date on which the judgment becomes binding
and enforceable (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), § 69).
214. Failure to ensure the enforcement of a final judicial decision against the State in a case
concerning pecuniary claims normally amounts to a violation of both Article 6 and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights
and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the “right to a court”, of
which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,
constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal
system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party.
It would be inconceivable for Article 6 § 1 to describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded to
litigants – proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious – without protecting the implementation
of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and
the conduct of proceedings would likely lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule
of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention.
Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the
“trial” for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (Hornsby v. Greece, § 40; Burdov v. Russia,
§ 34).
215. An unreasonably long delay in enforcement of a binding judgment may therefore breach the
Convention (Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], § 63; Hornsby v. Greece, § 40; De Luca v. Italy, § 66;
Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), § 65). For instance, in the context of State-owned companies, a delay of less
than one year in the payment of a monetary judicial award is in principle compatible with the
Convention, longer delay being prima facie unreasonable (Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, §§ 109-
110).
216. It is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a
judgment debt. Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular
circumstances. But the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under
Article 6 § 1 (Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], § 74). Similarly, the complexity of the domestic
enforcement procedure or of the State budgetary system cannot not relieve the State of its
obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and
enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), § 70; Süzer
and Eksen Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey, § 116).
217. A person who has obtained a final judgment against the State cannot be expected to bring
separate enforcement proceedings (Metaxas v. Greece, § 19, and Lizanets v. Ukraine, § 43; Ivanov
v. Ukraine, § 46). In such cases, the defendant State authority which was duly notified of the
judgment must take all necessary measures to comply with it or to transmit it to another competent

authority for execution (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), § 69). A successful litigant may be required to
undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt, be it during a voluntary
execution of a judgment by the State or during its enforcement by compulsory means (Shvedov
v. Russia, § 32). Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that the authorities request the applicant to
produce additional documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a
judgment (Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, § 24). The requirement of the creditor’s cooperation
must not, however, go beyond what is strictly necessary and, in any event, does not relieve the
authorities of their obligation under the Convention to take timely action of their own motion.
218. For instance, in Skórits v. Hungary, §§ 43-44, the Court held that practical steps were required
by the authorities to ensure that decisions concerning the return of ownership are enforceable and
not hindered by errors in the land register, and found a violation of the right to property since ten
years had passed after the decision before the applicant could eventually enter into possession of
the land. In Vitiello v. Italy, § 37, the Court found a violation of the right to property for
non-execution by the national authorities of the domestic court’s demolition order of an abusive
building.
219. In the context of the restitution of property, the Court ordered the State to take all necessary
measures to ensure the enforcement of the decision in the applicants’ favour within a time-limit,
including the removal of a church from their land (Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
§§ 68-71; see the chapter on the Restitution of Property below).
220. In De Luca v. Italy, §§ 49-56, the applicant’s inability to bring enforcement proceedings against
a local authority to recover a judgment debt for damages amounted to a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. Hence, even the legal inability of a public authority to pay its debts does not exempt
the State from its responsibility under the Convention.
221. In assessing whether a company was to be taken as a “governmental organisation” the
company’s legal status under the domestic law is not decisive for the determination of the State’s
responsibility for the company’s acts or omissions. Indeed, a company needs to enjoy sufficient
institutional and operational independence from the State to absolve the latter from its
responsibility under the Convention for its acts and omissions. The key criteria used to determine
whether the State was responsible for such debts were as follows: the company’s legal status (under
public or private law); the nature of its activity (a public function or an ordinary commercial
business); the context of its operation (such as a monopoly or heavily regulated business); its
institutional independence (the extent of State ownership); and its operational independence (the
extent of State supervision and control) (Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, §§ 186-188, and the
references cited therein) (for further details, see the chapter on State-owned companies below).
222. When the debtor is a private actor, the position is different since the State is not, as a general
rule, directly liable for debts of private actors and its obligations under these Convention provisions
are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the respective
court awards, for example, through a bailiff service or bankruptcy procedures (Anokhin v. Russia
(dec.); Shestakov v. Russia (dec.); Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.); Kesyan v. Russia, § 80).
223. Thus, when the authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do
so, their inactivity may, in certain circumstances, engage the State’s responsibility on the ground of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Scollo v. Italy, § 4; Fuklev v. Ukraine,
§ 84). The Court’s task in such cases is to examine whether the measures applied by the authorities
were adequate and sufficient and whether they acted diligently in order to assist a creditor in the
execution of a judgment (Anokhin v. Russia (dec.);Fuklev v. Ukraine, § 84).
224. More specifically, the State has an obligation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to provide the
necessary assistance to a creditor in the enforcement of an award granted by a court (Kotov
v. Russia [GC], § 90; Fomenko and Others (dec.), § 171). For instance, in Fuklev v. Ukraine, § 92, the

Court found that the failure of the bailiffs to act for well over four years or to effectively control the
bankruptcy enforcement proceedings constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In
Fomenko and Others (dec.), §§ 181-195, where the delays in the enforcement were up to twelve
years, the Court considered – given the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the number of
claimants, the overall amount of the debt to be recovered, the debtor company’s attitude and the
available information on the bailiffs’ activities – that the global effect of the measures employed by
the bailiffs was compatible with the requirements imposed on the State by both Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Where the national insolvency
legislation considers work-related claims of employees accrued within the year prior to the opening
of the insolvency proceedings as priority claims, whereas claims falling outside the one-year
reference period have non-priority ranking, the Court has referred to the legislation of ILO and found
the arrangement appropriate (Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), § 34).
225. A failure to enforce a judgment against a private debtor because of the debtor’s indigence
cannot be held against the State unless and to the extent that it is imputable to the domestic
authorities, for example, because of their errors or delay in proceeding with the enforcement
(Omasta v. Slovakia (dec.); Vrtar v. Croatia, § 96).
226. On the other hand, a violation was found in a case where the domestic authorities proceeded
with the sale of the applicant’s share in the property after he had settled the debt in full, solely in
order to recover the costs of the enforcement proceedings (Mindek v. Croatia, §§ 79-87) or in a case
where a house had been sold in the enforcement proceedings for one-third of its value (Ljaskaj
v. Croatia, §§ 62-70). Similarly, the sale of a house and the applicant’s eviction from it in the context
of tax enforcement proceedings where the unpaid tax amounted only to a fraction of the house’s
value and in the context of lack of communication between the various tax authorities involved in
various parts of the proceedings aiming at the execution of the order against the applicant was
found to be in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Rousk v. Sweden, §§ 119-127).
D. Relationship between Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and other

Articles of the Convention
227. Issues arising in connection with the enjoyment of one’s “possessions” may also relate to other
Articles of the Convention.
1. Article 21
228. In Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], §§ 136-137, where a methane explosion at a rubbish tip resulted in
a landslide which engulfed the applicant’s house killing his nine close relatives, the Court did not
differentiate between the member States’ positive obligations under Article 2 and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 as to the adequacy of preventive and remedial measures.
229. In Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], §§ 174, 214, 220, the Court concluded that from the time the
Russian Federation had exercised “effective control”, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law,
over the territories of South Ossetia and the “buffer zone” after the active conduct of hostilities had
ceased, the Russian Federation was also responsible for the actions of the South Ossetian forces,
including an array of irregular militias, in those territories, without it being necessary to provide
proof of “detailed control” of each of those actions. The Court had sufficient evidence in its
possession to enable it to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there had been an administrative
practice contrary to Articles 2 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the killing of civilians and the
torching and looting of houses in Georgian villages in South Ossetia and in the “buffer zone”.
1. See the Guide on Article 2 (Right to life).

2. Article 3
230. In Pančenko v. Latvia (dec.), where the applicant complained about her socio-economic
problems in general, the Court recalled that the Convention does not guarantee socio-economic
rights, as such. However, it did not exclude the possibility that when the living conditions of the
applicant attained a minimum level of severity this could amount to treatment contrary to Article 3.
231. In the case of Budina v. Russia (dec.), where the applicant complained that her pension was too
small to enable her to survive, the Court did not exclude the possibility that State responsibility
might be engaged under Article 3 in respect of treatment where an applicant, who was wholly
dependent on State support, found herself faced with official indifference in a situation of serious
deprivation or want incompatible with human dignity. It considered that such complaint was not per
se incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and examined the
applicant’s economic circumstances, including also the amount of the applicant’s State-paid
retirement pension, as a whole, under Article 3 to determine whether her situation was such as to
fall within the prohibition of degrading treatment. It found this not to be the case.
232. In addition to finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in conjunction with Article 2 (see
above), the Court in Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], § 220, concluded - having regard to the seriousness of
the abuses committed which could be classified as “inhuman and degrading treatment” owing to the
feelings of anguish and distress suffered by the victims who, furthermore, had been targeted as an
ethnic group - that this administrative practice was also contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
3. Article 42
233. A choice given to a prisoner between paid work and unpaid work but with remission of
sentence did not amount to a breach of Article 4 of the Convention (Floroiu v. Romania (dec.),
§§ 35-38). Obligatory work performed by a prisoner without being affiliated to the old-age pension
system is to be regarded as “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” within
the meaning of Article 4 § 3 (a) of the Convention (Stummer v. Austria [GC], § 132).
234. Likewise, unpaid work carried out by a prisoner can be regarded as “work required to be done
in the ordinary course of detention” (Zhelyazkov v. Bulgaria, § 36). However, the Court noted the
developments in attitudes to unpaid prisoners’ work, in particular in the 1987 and 2006 European
Prison Rules, which called for the equitable remuneration of the work of prisoners – with the 2006
Rules adding “in all instances” – which reflected an evolving trend. However, the applicant
performed the work before the adoption of the 2006 Rules and for a short period of time (ibid.,
§ 36).
4. Article 63
235. Domestic proceedings in relation to interferences with or to the protection of the right to
property often raise issues under Article 6 paragraph 1. Indeed, the right to property is clearly a right
of a pecuniary character, and so decisions by the State concerning expropriation or the regulation of
the use of private property or otherwise affecting pecuniary or other property rights have been held
to be subject to the right to a fair hearing (British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the
Netherlands, § 67 – patent application; Raimondo v. Italy, § 43 – confiscation). Furthermore, the
enforcement of judicial decisions constitutes an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of
Article 6 (see the sub-chapter on Enforcement proceedings above).
236. However, most often in cases where civil proceedings concerning a property right lasted for an
excessively long time, it is sufficient for the Court to find a breach of Article 6 of the Convention.
2. See the Guide on Article 4 (Prohibition of slavery and forced labour).

3. See the Guides on Article 6 (Right to a fair trial): the Civil limb and the Criminal limb.

Where the applicant argues that the length of proceedings by itself amounted to a continuing
hindrance with the right to property, the Court has held that it is not necessary to examine the
length of proceedings complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Zanghì v. Italy, § 23) or that the
issue is premature (Beller v. Poland, § 74). In the context of “a social lease” (“bail social”), the Court
found that by failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply with the decision
ordering the re-housing of the applicant, the French authorities had deprived Article 6 § 1 of all
useful effect (Tchokontio Happi v. France, § 52).
237. However, in cases concerning inordinately lengthy proceedings, the Court has found that their
protracted duration (Kunić v. Croatia, § 67; Machard v. France, § 15) or other measures contributing
to the delays (Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], § 59) also had a direct impact on the applicants’ rights
to peaceful enjoyment of their “possessions”. In the latter case, the Court also found that the
applicant company was deprived of its right under Article 6 to have its dispute with its tenant
decided by a court (ibid., § 74).
238. In cases where the Court finds a violation of Article 6 on account of lack of access to court and
the applicant complains about the substantive outcome of the case also under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, the Court usually considers that it cannot speculate as to what the situation would have been
if the applicant had had effective access to a court. Hence it is not necessary to rule on the question
whether the applicant had a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and,
accordingly, on the complaint based on that Article (Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, § 50; Glod
v. Romania, § 46; Albina v. Romania, § 43; Lungoci v. Romania, § 48; Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, § 82).
However, in Zehentner v. Austria, § 82, concerning a judicial sale of the applicant’s apartment, the
Court found a violation under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of inadequate
procedural safeguards for the applicant who lacked judicial capacity and held that no separate issue
arose under Article 6.
239. The adoption of a new retroactive law that regulates the impugned situation while proceedings
concerning a proprietary interest of the applicant are pending, may constitute a violation of both
Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, when the adoption of the law is not justified by compelling
reasons of general interest and poses an excessive burden on the applicant (Caligiuri and Others
v. Italy, § 33).
240. When an applicant complains about the inability to enforce a final court award in his favour,
both State obligations under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 come into play. When the
authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do so, their inactivity
may, in certain circumstances, engage the State’s responsibility on the ground of both Article 6 and
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Fuklev v. Ukraine, §§ 86 and 92-93; Anokhin v. Russia (dec.); Liseytseva
and Maslov v. Russia, § 183).
241. The quashing by way of supervisory review of a binding and enforceable judgment awarding
compensation to the applicant, in the absence of exceptional compelling circumstances, violates the
principle of the finality of judgments and breaches Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Davydov v. Russia, §§ 37-39). However, the considerations of “legal certainty” should not
discourage the State from correcting particularly egregious errors committed in the administration
of justice (Lenskaya v. Russia, § 41). These exceptional circumstances arise only where the original
proceedings were tainted with such a serious flaw as to render them fundamentally unfair, as in a
case where through no fault of the third person who was not a party to the proceedings the
domestic court rendered a judgment which directly affected his rights. The quashing of a final
decision in such circumstances did not give rise to a breach of the Convention (Protsenko v. Russia,
§§ 30-34). Similarly, the quashing of a final judgment aimed at remedying a serious miscarriage of
justice in criminal proceedings (Giuran v. Romania, § 41) was found to strike the correct balance
between the competing interests of finality and justice, or where an applicant had been awarded full

restitution of the entire property, despite the fact that several persons were entitled to it
(Vikentijevik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, § 70).
242. Issues regarding costs arising in judicial proceedings have in some cases been examined by the
Court under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The “loser pays” rule in the context of civil proceedings
cannot in itself be regarded as contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Klauz v. Croatia, §§ 82 and 84),
as its purpose is to avoid unwarranted litigation and unreasonably high litigation costs by dissuading
potential plaintiffs from bringing unfounded actions without bearing the consequences. This view is
not altered by the fact that those rules also apply to civil proceedings to which the State is a party
(Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, § 96). In a case where the applicants claimed compensation for
expropriation and won their case in part, but the award they received had to be paid in its entirety
to the other party to cover its costs, the Court found a violation. The Court noted that neither the
applicants’ conduct nor the procedural activity set in motion could justify court fees so high as to
result in a complete lack of compensation for an expropriation. The applicants had thus had to bear
an excessive burden (Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], § 78; in Musa Tarhan v. Turkey, § 86, where the
applicant was ordered to pay the litigation costs of the opposing party in expropriation proceedings,
which reduced the sum of the compensation substantially, the burden on the applicant was also
found to have been excessive. Likewise, in National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria, § 83, the
domestic court’s decision to award costs for the lawyer’s fees of the opposing party, without
providing sufficient and relevant reasons so as to ensure that those fees were actually fair and
justified as required by domestic law, amounted to a failure to properly balance the various interests
at stake and hence a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.. A refusal to reimburse costs borne in
respect of a public prosecutor’s unsuccessful civil-law claim in favour of a third party was found to be
in breach of Article 6 of the Convention (Stankiewicz v. Poland, §§ 65-76).
243. Article 6 under its criminal limb was found to apply in a case where an order was given to have
a house demolished which had been built without planning permission, but had been subsequently
tolerated by the authorities for thirty years. In particular, the demolition measure was regarded as a
“penalty” for the Convention purposes (Hamer v. Belgium, § 60).
5. Article 74
244. The confiscation imposed on the applicants for unlawful site development was regarded as a
“penalty” within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention in spite of the fact that no criminal
conviction had been handed down against the applicant companies or their representatives. For that
purpose, the Court relied on the fact that the confiscation in question was connected to a “criminal
offence” based on general legal provisions; that the material illegality of the developments had been
established by criminal courts; that the sanction provided for by the Italian law sought mainly to
deter, by way of punishment, further breaches of the statutory conditions; that the law classified
confiscation for unlawful site development among the criminal sanctions; and, lastly, that the
sanction was one of a certain severity (Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy (dec.)). The same criteria
were applied in the case of G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], §§ 212-234, and Article 7
was found to be applicable.
245. In the case of Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy, the domestic court acquitted the applicant
companies’ representatives on the grounds that they had made an inevitable and excusable error in
the interpretation of the planning permission granted to them. For the purposes of Article 7, the
applicable legislative framework did not enable the accused to know the meaning and scope of the
criminal law which was thus deficient. Consequently, the confiscation of the properties ordered by
the criminal court had not been prescribed by law for the purposes of Article 7 and amounted to an
arbitrary penalty. For the same reason the confiscation breached also Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Sud
Fondi srl and Others v. Italy, §§ 111-118 and 136-142). A similar conclusion was reached in a case
4. See the Guide on Article 7 (No punishment without law).

where property and buildings were confiscated even though the criminal proceedings against the
owner were discontinued for being time-barred (Varvara v. Italy, § 72).
246. In G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], confiscation was automatically applied in
cases of unlawful site development, as provided for by Italian legislation. The Court assessed the
proportionality of the interference having regard to a number of factors, which included the degree
of culpability or negligence on the part of the applicants or, at the very least, the relationship
between their conduct and the offence in question. The importance of procedural guarantees was
also underlined in that respect, as judicial proceedings concerning the right to the peaceful
enjoyment of “possessions” had to afford an individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or
her case to the competent authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures
interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid., §§ 301-303).
247. In Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), the applicant was convicted of a number of serious crimes. He was
later required, in accordance with the 2008 law on Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from
Crime, to forfeit his house, which he had bought using illicit funds in 1998. The domestic courts
reasoned that the forfeiture of criminal assets was neither a criminal sanction nor penal in nature so
that the prohibition of retroactive of criminal law was not applicable. The Court recalled that the
“lawfulness” requirement could not normally be construed as preventing the legislature from
controlling the use of property or otherwise interfering with pecuniary rights via new retrospective
provisions regulating continuing factual situations or legal relations anew. Therefore, the forfeiture
of the applicant’s property was in full conformity with the “lawfulness” requirement contained in
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid., § 64). The Court also concluded that the forfeiture order against the
applicant did not amount to a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7 § 1, second sentence, of the
Convention, and that Article 7 was therefore not applicable in the case (ibid., §§ 56-57).
6. Article 85
248. A number of cases relating both to Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
concerns housing. There may be a significant overlap between the concept of “home” and that of
“property” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, but the existence of a “home” is not dependent on the
existence of a right or interest in respect of real property (Surugiu v. Romania, § 63). An individual
may have a property right over a particular building or land for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, without having sufficient ties with the property for it to constitute his or her “home” within
the meaning of Article 8 (Khamidov v. Russia, § 128).
249. Interference with an applicant’s right to occupy his own home may breach Article 8. The Court
has adopted a broad interpretation of the notion of home (Gillow v. the United Kingdom, § 46;
Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], §§ 30-32; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey [GC], § 88). The same may be true with
regard to business premises and lawyer’s offices (Niemietz v. Germany, §§ 29-33).
250. In Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], §§ 30-32, the Court examined the applicant’s complaints about the
cancellation of his tenancy agreement concluded with the Cypriot State under Article 8 in
conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. It found that the applicant, a civil servant whose
tenancy agreement had many features of a typical lease of property, was discriminated against in
comparison with private tenants. In view of these conclusions, it was not necessary to examine
separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
251. Karner v. Austria is an important case about housing rights under Article 14 in conjunction with
Article 8 of the Convention. It concerns the succession to a lease, in the context of a homosexual
relationship. Reiterating that differences based on sexual orientation required particularly serious
reasons by way of justification, the Court found that it also had to be shown that it was necessary to
exclude homosexual couples from the scope of the legislation in order to achieve the aim of the
5. See the Guide on Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life).

protection of the traditional family unit. A violation was found (ibid., §§ 38-42). Similar conclusion
was reached in Kozak v. Poland, §§ 98-99, in respect of a cohabiting same-sex partner (compare, for
the evolution of the case law, S. v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision, see “Lease on
property”).
252. In Rousk v. Sweden, §§ 115-127, the judicial sale of the applicant’s house in order to secure the
payment of taxes due to the State and the ensuing eviction amounted to a breach of both Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 because the owner’s interests had not been adequately protected.
Whereas in Vaskrsić v. Slovenia, § 87, the sale of the applicant’s house at public auction in order to
enforce an initial claim of EUR 124 amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention. With regard, more generally, to reconciliation of the right to respect for one’s home
with the enforced sale of a house for the purposes of paying debts, see Vrzić v. Croatia, §§ 63-68.
253. In Gladysheva v. Russia, § 93, the Court found a violation of the same provisions on the
grounds of the failure by the domestic authorities to assess the proportionality of the impugned
measure when evicting a bona fide purchaser from a flat fraudulently acquired by the previous
owner. It also specified that the margin of appreciation of the State in housing matters is narrower in
respect of the rights under Article 8 compared to those protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
regard being had to the central importance of Article 8 to the individual’s identity, self-
determination, physical and moral integrity, maintenance of relationships with others and a settled
and secure place in the community (Connors v. the United Kingdom, §§ 81–84; Orlić v. Croatia, §§ 63-
70). An individualised proportionality assessment is also required in cases of risk of losing of the
applicant’s home notwithstanding that, under domestic law, his or her right of occupation had come
to an end (Ćosić v. Croatia, §§ 21-23), and of an imminent loss of one’s home consequent on a
decision to demolish it on the ground that it had been knowingly constructed in breach of planning
regulations (Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, § 53).
254. In Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia, §§ 205-211 and 272-275, the housing reforms following
the move to market economy and resulting in the applicants’ deprivation of protected tenancies
were considered both under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that, although
the deprivation of protected tenancies constituted an interference with the right to respect for the
home, in the instant case it did not breach Article 8 given that it was proportionate to the legitimate
aims pursued. The same considerations led the Court to conclude that neither Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 was violated. Similarly, in Sorić v. Croatia (dec.), the Court held that under the housing
reforms, the applicant’s position as a lessee continued to be strongly protected. However, Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 did not guarantee a right to buy any property, but only peaceful possession of the
existing property. In Galović v. Croatia ((dec.), § 65), the Court also rejected a claim under Article 8
brought by a former holder of a specially protected tenancy who had been evicted from the dwelling
by the owner, since there was other housing available to her. In Grozdanić and Gršković‑Grozdanić
v. Croatia, §§ 109 and 115-120 , the Court held that the domestic court´s decision to invalidate the
sale contract based on a purely procedural reversal of case-law, not altering the substantive-law
conditions for termination of specially-protected tenancy, was not unforeseeable and that requiring
tenants to demonstrate their intention to continue using the flats awarded to them by bringing
relevant proceedings against third persons occupying the flats was not disproportionate, particularly
during a time of war with high numbers of displaced people.
255. By the same token, in Zrilić v. Croatia, § 71, the Court held that the judicial order for the
partition of the house which the applicant had jointly owned with her former husband by judicial
sale did not breach Article 8 and, therefore, no further verification was needed to find the absence
of violation also in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
256. In Cvijetić v. Croatia, § 51, where the applicant was unable to have her former husband evicted
from the flat which constituted her home, a violation of Articles 6 and 8 was found on account of the

protracted enforcement proceedings. There was no need for a separate examination of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
257. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to enjoy one’s “possessions” in a
pleasant environment (see Flamenbaum and Others v. France, § 184, which concerned an extension
of the airport runway also under Article 8). Furthermore, since the applicants had not established
whether and to what extent the extension of the runway had affected the value of their property,
the Court found no violation of the rights under the said provision (ibid., §§ 188-190).
258. In cases where the Court has found a violation of Article 8 on the grounds of night-time
disturbances caused by a bar (Udovičić v. Croatia, § 159), or of the absence of an effective response
by the authorities to complaints about serious and repetitive neighbourhood disturbances (Surugiu
v. Romania, §§ 67-69), it decided that it was not necessary to examine whether in this case there
had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
259. Finally, Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 come into play in cases concerning the
destruction of one’s dwelling. In Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, § 77, the Court had regard to the
deliberate manner in which the applicants’ homes had been destroyed by the security forces and
found a violation of Articles 3, 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. For further details, see the
chapter on Tenancies and rent control here below.
7. Article 10
260. In Handyside v. the United Kingdom, §§ 59 and 63, the applicant complained about the seizure
of the matrix and of hundreds of copies of the Little Red Schoolbook, and their forfeiture and
subsequent destruction following the domestic judgment. The Court found that the aim of the
seizure was “the protection of morals” as understood by the competent British authorities in the
exercise of their power of appreciation. The forfeiture and destruction of the Schoolbook
permanently deprived the applicant of the ownership of certain “possessions”. However, these
measures were authorised by the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, interpreted in the
light of the principle of law, common to the Contracting States, where under items whose use has
been lawfully adjudged illicit and dangerous to the general interest are forfeited with a view to
destruction. Therefore, there was no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 or Article 10 of the
Convention.
261. In Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], § 76, the Court held that the confiscation and destruction of copies of
a book published by the applicant publisher was merely an aspect of his conviction for disseminating
separatist propaganda (which fell to be considered under Article 10). It was therefore not necessary
to consider the confiscation separately under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
262. In Ashby Donald and Others v. France, § 40, the Court found that when it comes to an
interference with the right to freedom of expression, the States enjoy a wider margin of appreciation
if the impugned measure is aimed at protecting other rights under the Convention such as the right
to peaceful enjoyment of property, in this specific case regarding copyright (Neij and Sunde
Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.)).
8. Article 116
263. In Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], §§ 85 and 117, concerning the automatic
membership of the applicants, owners of landholdings smaller than 20 hectares and opposed to
hunting, of approved municipal or inter-municipality hunters’ associations and the transfer of
hunting rights over their land to these associations, the Court found a violation of both Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 and Article 11 of the Convention.
6. See the Guide on Article 11 (Freedom of assembly and association).

9. Article 13
264. For Article 13 of the Convention to come into play, the applicants should have an “arguable”
claim. In the affirmative, they should have effective and practical remedies in order to have their
claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress for the losses.
265. In Iatridis v. Greece [GC], § 65, concerning the authorities’ failure to return the cinema to the
applicant, the Court found that there was a difference in the nature of the interests protected by
Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: the former affords a procedural
safeguard, namely the “right to an effective remedy”, whereas the procedural requirement inherent
in the latter is ancillary to the wider purpose of ensuring respect for the right to the peaceful
enjoyment of possessions. Both a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 13 was found.
266. Similarly, in Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], §§ 156-157, the Court found that there was a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention as regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning
the effectiveness of the administrative proceedings for compensation for the destruction of
household goods as a result of a methane gas explosion in a rubbish tip. Conversely, in Budayeva
and Others v. Russia, §§ 196-198 , where the damage occurred to a large extent as a result of the
natural disaster, no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 in conjunction with that
Article was found, considering that the applicants were able to lodge a claim for damages and have it
examined by competent courts and that the State has implemented measures through the general
scheme of emergency relief.
267. As to rent control cases, the Court has found constitutional redress proceedings to have been
ineffective in the case of Marshall and Others v. Malta, §§ 71-81, which concerned the capping of
rent levels on commercial properties, given the failure to order eviction or to award higher future
rents, and concluded as to a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In
Cauchi v. Malta,* §§ 52-55 and 58-64, the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings
claiming that a domestic ordinance, which granted tenants the right to retain possession of the
premises under a lease, effectively imposed on her, the owner, a unilateral lease relationship for an
indefinite period without enabling her to obtain a fair and adequate rent. The Court found that the
applicant was made to bear a disproportionate burden and that the redress provided by the
domestic court did not offer sufficient relief to her, amounting thereby to a violation of Article 13 of
the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
268. In the framework of restitution of property to previous owners, in Driza v. Albania, §§ 115-120,
a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found on account of the
lack of setting up of an adequate restitution scheme, in particular the bodies and the procedure.
269. Finally, in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], §§ 213-215, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC],
§§ 269-274, the lack of availability of a remedy capable of providing redress in respect of the
applicants’ Convention complaints relating to the loss of their homes and properties during the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and offering reasonable prospects of success
entailed also a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
10. Article 14
270. The prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 can only be invoked in connection with one
of the other substantive rights protected by the Convention.
271. In cases under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court examines
whether the applicants had been in a relevantly similar or analogous position to the group of
persons to qhich they compared themselves. However, not every difference in treatment would
amount to a violation of Article 14: States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing
whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify different treatment.

The scope of the margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the
background. A wide margin is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to
general measures of economic or social strategy, for example (Špoljar and Dječji Vrtić Pčelice v.
Croatia (dec.), §§ 33-36).
272. Although the scope of the State’s powers under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may in some
instances be wide, such powers may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner. Where the
applicant has been denied all or part of a particular asset on a discriminatory ground covered by
Article 14, the relevant test is whether, but for the discriminatory ground about which the applicant
complains, he or she would have had a right, enforceable under domestic law, in respect of the asset
in question (Fabris v. France [GC], § 52).
273. The discrimination of illegitimate children was at stake in the ground-breaking case of Marckx
v. Belgium, § 65. The Court ruled that the applicant as an unmarried mother was discriminated
against in disposing freely with her property in comparison with a married mother. No violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone was found in respect of the mother, and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 was found to be inapplicable in respect of the daughter.
274. Similarly, in Mazurek v. France, § 54, a law reducing the inheritance payable to the child of an
adulterous relationship was held to discriminate unjustifiably against such children in the exercise of
their property rights, although “protection of the traditional family” was considered a legitimate aim
for the State to pursue (Fabris v. France [GC], §§ 68-72; with regards to succession rights see also,
Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 65, for cohabiting sisters; with regards to uprating of pensions
for non-residents, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 90; and with regards to an
entitlement to a survivor’s pension by a religious-wedding widow, Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], § 86).
275. The difference of treatment suffered by the applicant, as a beneficiary of a will drawn up in
accordance with the Civil Code by a testator of Muslim faith as compared to a beneficiary of a will
drawn up in accordance with the Civil Code by a non-Muslim testator, had no objective and
reasonable justification (Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], § 161).
276. To the contrary, in Stummer v. Austria [GC], §§ 132-136, the refusal to take work performed in
prison into account in calculation of pension rights did not entail any violation of Article 14 in
conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see above in this chapter under Article 4).
277. In Chabauty v. France [GC], § 47, the inability of small landholders, in contrast to large
landholders, to have land removed from the control of approved hunters’ association other than on
ethical grounds did not entail any violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (compare Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], § 95).
278. The case of Guberina v. Croatia concerned a refusal of tax relief for the purchase of a house
following the sale of an apartment, with a view to accommodating the needs of a severely
handicapped child, on the ground that the apartment which had been sold met the needs of the
family, being sufficiently large and equipped with the necessary infrastructure such as electricity,
heating, etc. No consideration was given by the tax authorities to the plight of the family taking care
of the child in an apartment without a lift. The applicant complained that the manner of application
of the tax legislation to his family’s situation amounted to discrimination, having regard to his child’s
disability. A violation was found essentially on the grounds of the authorities’ failure to have regard
to wider disability-based considerations and obligations which resulted in the application of an over-
restrictive and mechanical approach to the interpretation of tax legislation, to the detriment of the
family’s concrete situation (ibid., § 98).
279. The case of J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom, §§ 97 and 101-105, concerned the complaint of
the applicants, both living in adapted homes, that new rules on housing benefit in the social housing
sector (known as “the bedroom tax”) discriminated against them because of their particular
situations: the first applicant cared for a disabled daughter while the second was a victim of

domestic violence and housed under a “Sanctuary Scheme”. The measure led to a reduction in rental
subsidy if occupants had more bedrooms than they were entitled to, with the aim of incentivising
them to move to a smaller house. The Court underlined that, outside the context of transitional
measures designed to correct historic inequalities, given the need to prevent discrimination against
people with disabilities and foster their full participation and integration in society, the margin of
appreciation the States enjoy in establishing different legal treatment for people with disabilities
was considerably reduced. It held that, where the alleged discrimination was on the basis of
disability and gender, and did not result from a transitional measure carried out in good faith in
order to correct an inequality, very weighty reasons would be required to justify the impugned
measure. The Court concluded that Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs), which can make up
shortfalls in rent, allowed it to find that the difference in treatment in the first applicant’s case was
justified. However, that was not the case for the second applicant: she was part of another scheme
whose aim was to allow victims of domestic violence to remain in their homes and the DHPs could
not resolve the conflict between that aim and the aim of the bedroom tax, which was to incentivise
her to move.
280. In Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], § 88, where a distinction was made on the basis of nationality, a
violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found, on account of the
Latvian courts’ refusal to grant the applicant a retirement pension in respect of her years of
employment in the former Soviet Union prior to 1991 on the ground that she did not have Latvian
nationality.
281. In Fábián v. Hungary [GC], the Court found that there were substantial legal and factual
differences between public and private sector employment for institutional and functional reasons,
such as the source of their salaries, the fact that the domestic law treated as distinct employment in
the public and private sector, that the applicant’s public sector profession was difficult to compare
with any private sector profession and that it was for the State as his employer to set down the
terms of his employment and, as the manager of the pension fund, the conditions for disbursement
of pensions (ibid., §§ 131-132; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), § 28). In another case, the Court has found
that the difference in treatment between pensioners employed in different categories within the
public sector was justified (Gellérthegyi and Others v. Hungary (dec.), §§ 34-40).
282. In Popović and Others v. Serbia, §§ 75-76 and 78, the Court held that the difference in the
provision of disability benefits between civilian and military beneficiaries was objectively and
reasonably justified by the way in which the two groups had sustained their injuries, without
examining first whether they were in “analogous or relevantly similar situations”. In particular, the
relevant difference in treatment had been a consequence of the moral debt that States might feel
obliged to honour in response to the service provided by their war veterans. Having suffered their
injuries during military service, the war veterans had been exposed to a higher level of risk whilst
engaged in the performance of State-imposed duties. Their injuries would also, because of the said
risk, be otherwise difficult to insure and it would likewise be onerous, if at all possible, for them to
obtain redress for the injuries caused to them by means of litigation. The civilians, by contrast, had
sustained their injuries in situations unrelated to the performance of such duties, mostly involving
accidents or illnesses or the actions of third parties.
283. In Špoljar and Dječji Vrtić Pčelice v. Croatia (dec.), §§ 38-46, the Court considered the
applicants complaint, about not receiving the same amount of subsidies as public kindergartens, to
be manifestly ill-founded since the private and public kindergartens were not in an analogous or
relevantly similar position. Public kindergartens, as establishments of local governments, primarily
aimed at satisfying a community’s needs in respect of preschool education whereas private
kindergartens were privately run establishments which, while also providing preschool education,
were oriented towards making a certain income for their services.

284. Finally, in Jurčić v. Croatia,* §§ 55 and 77-85, the applicant entered into an employment
contract ten days after she had undergone in vitro fertilisation (IVF). When she subsequently went
on sick leave, on account of pregnancy-related complications, the relevant domestic authority re-
examined her health insurance status, finding that, by signing the contract shortly after IVF, the
applicant had only sought to obtain pecuniary advantages related to employment status so that her
employment was therefore fictitious: her application to be registered as an insured employee, along
with her request for salary compensation due to sick leave, was accordingly rejected. The Court held
that the refusal to employ or recognise the applicant’s employment-related benefit based on her
pregnancy amounted to direct discrimination on grounds of sex, which could not be justified by the
financial interests of the State.

III. Specific issues

A. Tenancies and rent control
285. The Convention and its Protocols do not guarantee a right to accommodation and housing and
many cases involving housing rights have been examined under Article 8 of the Convention as
regards the protection of the applicants’ right to respect for their private or family life (see the sub-
chapter on Article 8 above). Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Convention organs have dealt with
a number of cases concerning the balancing of the landlords’ rights with rights granted to tenants
under national law, fair-trial guarantees of both landlords and tenants and the latter’s guarantees
against eviction, non-discrimination issues, etc.
286. The first case concerning the balancing of property rights of landlords with those of tenants is
James and Others v. the United Kingdom. The case concerned the right of tenants under leases for a
term of over twenty years to acquire full ownership of the property, further to the enactment of the
Leasehold Reform Act. The applicants had been named as trustees of a substantial estate under a
will left by a member of the landed aristocracy. Tenants of some of the properties at stake exercised
their rights of acquisition under the Leasehold Reform Act, thereby depriving the trustees of their
property interest. The trustees complained that the forced transfer of the properties and the
amount of compensation they subsequently received violated their rights.
287. The Court found it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in
implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, and that it would respect the
legislature’s judgment as to what is “in the public interest” unless that judgment be manifestly
without reasonable foundation (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 46). It held that the
alleviation of social injustice in housing was a legitimate aim as pursued by the Leasehold Reform
Act, which fell within the legislature’s margin of appreciation. As for the proportionality of the
measures implemented by the State, the Court found that providing tenants with rights of
acquisition in these circumstances was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate, as the statute
limited this right to less valuable properties that were perceived by the legislature as representing
the most severe cases of hardship (ibid., § 70; for Article 14 of the Convention, § 77).
288. Similarly, in Mellacher and Others v. Austria, landlords who owned or had an ownership
interest in multiple apartment buildings complained that the introduction of a statutory reduction in
rent under the Rent Act violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In evaluating the challenged legislation,
the Court recognised the national legislature’s wide margin of appreciation in both identifying a
problem of public concern and in determining the measures needed to further the social and
economic policies adopted to address it, in this case, in the field of housing. The Court found that it
was reasonable for the Austrian lawmaker to conclude that social justice required reducing the
original rents and that the rent reductions flowing from the statute, although substantial, did not
necessarily place a disproportionate burden on landlords (ibid., § 57). Moreover, in the context of
rent control, but where the subject of the lease was a premise used by a band, the Court recognised
that the cultural and social role of the club was in the public interest; the degree thereof, however,
was significantly less marked that in other cases and did not therefore justify such a substantial
reduction compared to the free market rental value (Bradshaw and Others v. Malta, § 58).
289. Conversely, in a more recent case, Lindheim and Others v. Norway, the amendments to the
Ground Lease Act granted lessees of land used for permanent or holiday homes the right to extend
their leases on the same terms as the previous lease for an unlimited period of time. The lessees
requested that their landlords extend their leases on the same terms as the previous lease, with no
increase in rent. The Court found that the aim pursued by the legislation namely to protect the
interests of leaseholders lacking financial means was legitimate as the lifting of rent controls in 2002
had substantially affected many unprepared tenants by drastically increasing their ground rent.

However, with regard to the proportionality of the measures, the Court held that, because the
extension of the ground lease contracts imposed on the owners had been for an indefinite period
with no possibility of any meaningful increase in rents, the actual value of the land would not be
relevant in the assessment of the level of rent in such leases. Furthermore, only the lessees could
choose to end the leases and were also free to assign the leases to third parties, and any change in
ownership on assignment by the lessee would not affect the level of rent, as the control on the level
of rent would remain in force indefinitely. These factors effectively deprived the owners of any
enjoyment of their property, including the possibility of disposing of it at a fair market value.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the financial and social burden had been imposed on the
lessors alone and held that the legislation violated the owners’ right to protection of their property
(ibid., §§ 128-134).
290. In Edwards v. Malta, the Court found a violation on account of the constraints placed on the
enjoyment of the applicant owner’s rights. His tenement and adjoining field were requisitioned by
the Government to provide housing for the homeless. The owner complained that he had been
deprived of his property for almost 30 years and that the rent he received in compensation was
ridiculously low compared to the market rate. The Court noted that the State’s requisition of the
property imposed an involuntary landlord-tenant relationship on the owner, who had no influence
over the selection of the tenant or over any of the fundamental terms of the tenancy. Furthermore,
the level of rent fixed as compensation was not sufficient to meet the owner’s legitimate interest in
deriving profit from his property. Therefore, the requisition had imposed a disproportionate and
excessive burden on the owner, who was compelled to substantially bear the social and financial
costs of providing housing for others (ibid., § 78).
291. In Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ([GC], § 56), and numerous follow-up cases, the Court found a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the extremely long waiting periods for eviction
of tenants (under Article 6 of the Convention, Edoardo Palumbo v. Italy, §§ 45-46).
292. In a similar vein, concerning the lack of appropriate fair-trial guarantees, in Amato Gauci
v. Malta, § 63, which concerned an owner’s inability to repossess his house on the expiry of a lease
and the frustration of his entitlement to receipt of a fair and adequate rent from the property, the
Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
293. As far as tenants’ guarantees against eviction are concerned, in Connors v. the United Kingdom,
§§ 81-84, where the gypsy way of life was at stake, and McCann v. the United Kingdom, § 53, the
Court has laid down the principle under Article 8 of the Convention that any person at risk of losing
his home should be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent
tribunal, even if, under domestic law, the right to occupation has come to an end. In Connors v. the
United Kingdom, § 100, no separate issue was found to arise under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
294. In Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, the domestic authorities ordered the demolition of the
house in which the applicants, an elderly unmarried couple, lived for a number of years, on the sole
ground that it was illegal because it had been constructed without a building permit. The Court
found that the applicants did not have at their disposal a procedure enabling them to obtain a
proper review of the proportionality of the intended demolition of the house in which they lived in
the light of their personal circumstances and that there would be a violation of Article 8 if the
demolition order were to be enforced without such a review (ibid., §§ 61-62). However, no violation
was found under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that the house had been knowingly built without a
permit and therefore in flagrant breach of the domestic building regulations (ibid., § 75).
295. Baykin and Others v. Russia concerned a domestic court’s order for the demolition of a house
(and the eviction of its occupants) located near an underground pipeline, finding it an unlawful
building because the safe distance of 100 m between the building and the pipeline had not
been observed. The Court found a violation on account of the lack of a clear and foreseeable legal
basis for such interference (ibid., §§ 70-74).

296. Furthermore, the general principle established by the Commission in Durini v. Italy that a right
to live in a particular property not owned by the applicant does not constitute a “possession” within
the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was followed by the Court in J.L.S.
v. Spain (dec.), where the applicant, a regular soldier, had obtained the use of military lodgings in
Madrid, by signing a special administrative form and not a lease agreement and in several other
cases, also concerning the transformation and changing conditions from socialism to market-
economy States (Kozlovs v. Latvia (dec.), Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.); H.F. v. Slovakia (dec.); Bunjevac
v. Slovenia (dec.)).
297. In a number of cases involving the non-enforcement of final judgments conferring State or
social housing rights on applicants, mostly against Russia, the Court has recalled that a “claim” can
constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently
established to be enforceable. The Court found that by virtue of enforceable judgments entitling the
applicants to an occupancy voucher followed by a so-called “social tenancy agreement” or otherwise
upholding their right to housing, they had an established “legitimate expectation” to acquire a
pecuniary asset. A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found (Teteriny v. Russia, §§ 48-50;
Malinovskiy v. Russia, §§ 44-46; Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia, §§ 49 and 58, Akimova v. Azerbaijan,
§§ 40-41; Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, §§ 182-83; Kukalo v. Russia, § 61; Sypchenko v. Russia,
§ 45). Furthermore, in Olaru and Others v. Moldova, §§ 54-57, the Court found that the impossibility
for local public authorities to comply with final court judgments ordering them to offer social
housing to the applicants amounted to a systemic situation.
298. In Tchokontio Happi v. France, §§ 59-61, the Court distinguished the facts of the case from the
above-mentioned cases of Teteriny v. Russia and Olaru and Others v. Moldova. Relying on the Durini
v. Italy (dec.) and J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.) line of jurisprudence (see the chapter on the Applicability of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – “possessions”), the Court found that the final judgment did not require
the authorities to confer ownership of an apartment on the applicant, but rather to make one
available to her. It was true that the applicant could acquire ownership of the apartment under
certain conditions. However, there was no legal obligation on the authorities to sell it. Accordingly,
she had no legitimate expectation to acquire a pecuniary asset and her complaint under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 was dismissed as incompatible ratione materiae (although a violation of Article 6 was
found).
299. Furthermore, in several cases the Court has dealt with situations stemming from the system of
“the specially protected tenancy” in the former Yugoslavia which had certain specific features in
comparison with an ordinary lease. Successor States have adopted different legal solutions generally
transforming “the specially protected tenancy” into, to a different degree, protected tenancies. In
Blečić v. Croatia [GC], § 92, and in Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia, § 135, the Court did not find it
necessary to decide whether “the specially protected tenancy” constituted a “possession” since the
cases were disposed of on other grounds.
300. In Gaćeša v. Croatia (dec.), the Court held that, because in Croatia the specially protected
tenancy had been abolished before Croatia had ratified the Convention, it did not have to determine
whether such tenancy itself could be considered a “possession” protected by Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. However, in Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina the Court held that “the specially
protected tenancy” constituted a “possession” because in Bosnia and Herzegovina the holders of
such tenancies were as a rule entitled to recover their pre-war flats and then purchase them under
very favourable terms. The Court distinguished that case from the Gaćeša v. Croatia (dec.) case on
the ground that in Croatia holders of the specially protected tenancies had no longer been able to
purchase their flats before Croatia’s ratification of the Convention and its Protocols.
301. In the landmark case Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], the Court dealt for the first time with a
situation from the other side of the coin – the rights of owners to whom property expropriated
under the previous regime was restored and who complained about the rent control schemes. The

Court has since dealt with other similar cases, such as Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, Statileo
v. Croatia, and R & L, s.r.o., and Others v. the Czech Republic. In general, rent control was enacted by
the member States after the fall of the previous regime. The tenants of the flats in those properties,
who had been granted privileged tenancy rights, were allowed to remain in the flats after the
previous regime’s collapse, with the State regulating the amount of rent, usually way below market
prices. In all the above mentioned cases, the Court found that the owners had to bear a
disproportionate burden and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare, in different
economic and social circumstances, James and Others v. the United Kingdom and Mellacher and
Others v. Austria).
302. Similarly, in Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania, the owners of apartments offered new leases to
the tenants occupying them, who had previously had State tenancies. The tenants declined to sign
the leases proposed by the landlords. The landlords then applied for eviction orders, which failed
due to the landlords’ failure to comply with legal formalities. An additional consequence was the
automatic extension of the tenants’ leases. A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found.
303. In Kasmi v. Albania, §§ 76, 79 and 85, the applicant started civil proceedings to evict tenants
from a former nationalised property which had been restored to his family. The domestic courts
found that three (out of four) tenants were “legally homeless” and enjoyed special protection.
Taking into consideration the social and economic circumstances of the State at the relevant time,
the Court accepted that providing housing to a vulnerable part of the society, such as retirees, and
to less affluent members of the population served a legitimate aim. As to the proportionality
analysis, a violation was found on account of the tenancy agreements imposed by law, the lack of
adequate mechanisms safeguarding the applicant’s right to terminate such agreements, the low
amount of rent fixed by law and the long period of uncertainty in which the applicant found himself.
304. Finally, one aspect of housing – a State-imposed standing charge payable to private heating
suppliers even by owners of flats disconnected from a district heating system which supplies their
residential buildings – was at stake in Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia, §§ 82-88. The Court
found a violation on account of the lack of any objective assessment of indirect use of heating in
each individual case and of the domestic courts’ failure to strike the requisite fair balance between
the competing interests involved by applying sufficient procedural safeguards.
B. Social welfare cases

305. The Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases concerning different types of
social security/State benefits, including pension rights. For a comprehensive recapitulation of the
relevant case-law, see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], §§ 80-89, Yavaş and Others v. Turkey, §§ 39-43.
306. As a general observation, the Court has held that, in principle, it cannot substitute itself for the
national authorities in assessing or reviewing the level of financial benefits available under a social
assistance scheme ( Larioshina v. Russia (dec.); Šeiko v. Lithuania, § 32).
307. As to pension rights, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee any right to a pension of a
particular amount (among other authorities Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.); Janković v. Croatia (dec.);
Kuna v. Germany (dec.); Lenz v. Germany (dec.); Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.); Kjartan Ásmundsson
v. Iceland, § 39; Apostolakis v. Greece, § 36; Wieczorek v. Poland, § 57; Poulain v. France (dec.);
Maggio and Others v. Italy, § 55; Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 84). Likewise, it does not
guarantee a right to an old-age pension as such (Aunola v. Finland (dec.); Da Silva Carvalho Rico
v. Portugal (dec.), § 30).
308. As to the obligation to adhere to an old-age pension scheme, the Court considered in
Ackermann and Fuhrmann v. Germany (dec.), whether the obligatory contributions imposed an
excessive burden on the applicants and declared the case manifestly ill-founded. It had regard to the

fact that the contribution amounted to approximately 19 per cent of their gross income and was
paid in equal shares by applicants and their employers.
309. The fact that a social insurance benefit can be reduced or discontinued does not prevent it
from being a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, at least until it is
revoked (Moskal v. Poland, § 40; see the chapter on the Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 –
“possessions”). The Court has accepted the possibility of reductions in social security entitlements in
certain circumstances. When deciding whether such measures were proportionate, the Court has
taken into account the following factors: the aim of the reduction; the fact that the authorities
sought to limit any loses to the social security scheme; that the applicants continued to receive old-
age pensions; that they were not discriminated against or at any disadvantage to pensioners under
the ordinary scheme; that measures had not been retroactive in effect; and that the length of the
applicants’ service had been taken into account for the calculation of their statutory contribution
periods (Yavaş and Others v. Turkey, §§ 47-50). The fact that a person has entered into and forms
part of a State social-security system, albeit a compulsory one, does not necessarily mean that that
system cannot be changed, either as to the conditions of eligibility of payment or as to the quantum
of the benefit or pension (Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 17; Carson and Others v. the
United Kingdom [GC], §§ 85-89).
310. However, where the amount of a benefit is reduced or discontinued, this normally constitutes
an interference with “possessions” which requires justification, in the general interest (Kjartan
Ásmundsson v. Iceland, §§ 39-40; Rasmussen v. Poland, § 71; Moskal v. Poland, §§ 51 and 64; Grudić
v. Serbia, § 72; Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.); Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 84; Philippou
v. Cyprus, § 59).
311. For the Court, an important consideration is whether the applicant’s right to derive benefits
from the social insurance scheme has been infringed in a manner that resulted in the essence of his
or her pension rights being impaired (Domalewski v. Poland (dec.); Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland,
§ 39; Wieczorek v. Poland, § 57; Rasmussen v. Poland, § 75; Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, §§ 91 and
97; Maggio and Others v. Italy, § 63; Stefanetti and Others v Italy, § 55). As to the proportionality
analysis (Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 42), the Court observed in general that the
deprivation of the entirety of a pension was likely to breach Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Stefanetti
and Others v Italy, § 59; Apostolakis v. Greece, § 41) and that, conversely, the imposition of a
reduction which it considers to be reasonable and proportionate would not necessarily do so (Da
Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 42; Arras and Others v. Italy, § 82; Poulain v. France (dec.);
Philippou v. Cyprus, § 68; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 117).
312. However, the fair balance test in the context of social insurance carried out by the Court is not
based solely on the amount or percentage of the loss suffered in the abstract. The Court examines
all the relevant elements against the case-specific background (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], § 117
and Stefanetti and Others v Italy, § 59). The specific factors relevant for assessing the proportionality
of an interference in the area of social insurance include the discriminatory nature of any loss of
entitlement (Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, § 43); any arbitrariness of a condition (Klein v. Austria,
§ 55); the applicant’s good faith (Moskal v. Poland, § 44; Čakarević v. Croatia, §§ 60-65; Casarin v.
Italy,* § 74) the applicant´s conviction resulting in the recovery of damages by attaching her old-age
pension on a monthly basis and the fact that she was not devoid of all means of subsistence (Šeiko v.
Lithuania, §§ 32-35).
313. The importance of procedural safeguards in the fair balance assessment in the context of social
insurance rights is illustrated by the fact that a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found in a
case where a decision awarding a social insurance benefit to the applicant was subsequently
reversed on the basis of a reassessment of the applicant’s original file (Moskal v. Poland, § 56).
314. In situations of suspension of benefits, the availability of a transitional period when entitled
persons could adjust to the new scheme is one of the proportionality factors which operates in

favour of the respondent State (Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, § 72; Moskal
v. Poland, § 74, where the applicant was faced, practically from one day to the next, with the total
loss of her early-retirement pension, which constituted her sole source of income, and with poor
prospects of being able to adapt to the change).
315. If a decision to suspend or discontinue benefits has retrospective effect, this will be a factor to
be weighed in the balance when assessing the proportionality of the interference Lakićević and
Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, § 71; Moskal v. Poland, § 69, for immediate effect. In a case
involving a retrospective recalculation of a pension already awarded to the applicant the Court held
that “the State’s possible interest in ensuring a uniform application of the Pensions Law should not
have brought about the retrospective recalculation of the judicial award already made in the
applicant’s favour. Backdating the recalculation with the effect that the sums due were reduced
involved an individual and excessive burden for the applicant and was incompatible with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1” (Bulgakova v. Russia, § 47). An obligation to pay back any amounts received prior to
the decision to discontinue or reduce payment of benefits, if they were not acquired fraudulently, is
relevant to the assessment of proportionality (Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, § 60, compare and contrast,
Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.); Moskal v. Poland, § 70). In Romeva v. North Macedonia, §§, 78
and 88, the applicant was retroactively divested of the retirement pension that she had been
receiving for seven years, with a request to pay back the amounts received, on account of the Fund’s
error in the original assessment of the applicant’s eligibility for a pension. Finding a violation, the
Court requested the Government to refrain from enforcing the outstanding repayment.
316. The passage of time can have particular significance for the legal existence and character of
social insurance benefits. This applies both to amendments to legislation, which may be adopted in
response to societal changes and evolving views on the categories of persons who need social
assistance, and also to the evolution of individual situations (Wieczorek v. Poland, § 67).
317. When payment of a pension was stopped automatically, merely on the basis of the applicant’s
criminal conviction, and he was thus deprived of the totality of his acquired rights, the Court found a
breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Apostolakis v. Greece, § 39). Conversely, a 65% reduction of a
benefit on the same basis was found to raise no issue, because a three-stage judicial procedure was
available under which that reduction could be challenged; all this taking into account the exceptional
gravity of the applicant’s offence (Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Philippou v. Cyprus, §§ 70,
71 and 74).
318. The specific issue of the enjoyment of a privileged position vis-à-vis pension rights enjoyed in
the past by members of the communist elite, political police or armed forces in the post-communist
European countries has been examined by the Court on several occasions (Goretzky v. Germany
(dec.); Lessing and Reichelt v. Germany (dec.); Schwengel v. Germany (dec.); Domalewski v. Poland
(dec.); Janković v. Croatia (dec.)). Reduction of benefits on account of the role which the recipients
had played in the past under the communist system was, in a number of cases, found to be in
conformity with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in particular as the measures complained of did not
impair the actual essence of the rights – reductions did not exceed, on average, 25% to 30%, and the
applicants continued to receive more than the average pension in Poland (Cichopek and Others
v. Poland (dec.), §§ 152 and 156). Where the applicants lost their privileged entitlement to social
insurance benefits as a result of legislation intended to condemn the political role which the
communist security services had played in repressing political opposition to the communist regime,
the Court declared such cases inadmissible, having regard to the fact that the social insurance
benefits had not been affected in a disproportionate or arbitrary manner (Skórkiewicz v. Poland
(dec.); Styk v. Poland, Commission decision; Bienkowski v. Poland, Commission decision). In such
cases it was accepted that the measures had pursued a legitimate aim, despite the considerable
time, almost twenty years, which had elapsed between the collapse of the communist regime and
the adoption of the domestic legislation depriving formerly privileged persons of the rights which
they had acquired (Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.), § 118).

319. Furthermore, benefits based on the claimant’s inability to remain in paid employment on
grounds of ill-health can also be revoked or reduced, even where they have been paid to the entitled
person for a long time. It is in the nature of things that various health conditions which initially make
it impossible for persons afflicted with them to work can evolve over time, leading to either
deterioration or improvement of the person’s health. It is permissible for States to take measures to
reassess the medical condition of persons receiving disability pensions with a view to establishing
whether they continue to be unfit to work, provided that such reassessment is in conformity with
the law and attended by sufficient procedural guarantees. Had entitlements to disability pensions
been maintained in situations where their recipients ceased over time to comply with the applicable
legal requirements, it would result in their unjust enrichment. Moreover, it would have been unfair
on persons contributing to the social insurance system, in particular those denied benefits because
they did not meet the relevant requirements. In more general terms, it would also sanction an
improper allocation of public funds, an allocation at variance with the objectives that disability
pensions were purported to meet (Wieczorek v. Poland, § 67; Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, § 51).
320. However, the discontinuation of a disability pension, as a result of an incorrect assessment of
the applicant’s fitness for work and the subsequent failure to provide a legal solution - preventing
the applicant from receiving compensation (on the basis of the res judicata principle), despite the
existence of relevant and sufficient reasons to depart from the incorrect finding to secure respect for
social justice and fairness - were deemed to have placed a disproportionate burden on the applicant
(Grobelny v. Poland, §§ 67-71).
321. As to different types of social welfare benefits, in Krajnc v. Slovenia, §§ 49-51 – where the
replacement of the applicant’s waiting period allowance with a much lower disability allowance
further to a legislative reform was at stake – the Court considered that the applicant found himself
in a particularly precarious situation and that he had to bear the disproportionate burden of losing a
significant portion of the disability benefit. In Fedulov v. Russia, §§ 76-79, concerning the eligibility of
a disabled person for free medication, the Court found that the situation was not prompted by any
change in legislation. The applicant fulfilled all the criteria for receiving the benefit in question, its
uninterrupted enjoyment being critical to the applicant’s life, and the State authorities’ refusal,
based on the lack of funds, was ultimately difficult to reconcile with the rule of law. This conclusion
made it unnecessary to make a proportionality assessment.
322. Reductions of certain social insurance and salary entitlements as a result of the application of
various austerity measures were found to comply with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court having
regard to the general context of the measures complained of (economic crisis) and to their scope
(the rate of the pension left unchanged, payment reduced for a period of three years; interference
therefore limited both in time and scope – Da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal
(dec.), §§ 28-29). In a similar case concerning, inter alia, cuts in pensions justified by the existence of
an exceptional economic crisis without precedent in recent Greek history, the Court found that the
proportionality of the measures did not raise issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Koufaki and
Adedy v. Greece (dec.), §§ 46-49; (see the chapter on Austerity measures).
323. The Court accepted the distinction that some Contracting States draw, for pension purposes,
between civil servants and private employees (Matheis v. Germany (dec.), concerning a survivor’s
pension); Ackermann and Fuhrmann v. Germany (dec.); Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 117; Panfile
v. Romania (dec.), § 28; and more recently, Giavi v. Greece, § 52; Fábián v. Hungary [GC], §§ 131-
132). The logic behind this approach is to be found in the structural differences between the two
systems, which in turn justifies different regulations (Matheis v. Germany (dec.), and more generally
on the differences between various categories of insured persons, Carson and Others v. the United
Kingdom [GC], § 84) (see the sub-chapter on Article 14 for Fábián v. Hungary [GC]).
324. The mere fact that new, less advantageous legislation deprives persons entitled to a pension
benefit, by dint of retrospective requalification of the conditions attaching to the acquisition of

pension rights does not, per se, suffice to find a violation. Statutory pension regulations are liable to
change and the legislature cannot be prevented from regulating, by means of new retrospective
provisions, pension rights derived from the laws in force (Khoniakina v. Georgia, §§ 74 and 75; and
also Arras and Others v. Italy, § 42; Sukhobokov v. Russia, § 26, concerning the non-enforcement of a
final judgment awarding the arrears in the payment of the applicant’s pension under Article 6;
Bakradze and Others v. Georgia (dec.), § 19).
325. The expectation of a person insured under a health insurance scheme that his or health
insurance contract will be maintained or renewed does not constitute a possession (Ramaer and Van
Villingen v. the Netherlands (dec.), § 81).
326. When it comes to reducing the amount payable, the principles which apply generally in cases
concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to salaries or welfare
benefits (Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), § 91; Stummer v. Austria [GC], § 82).
C. Banking cases
327. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been invoked in a number of cases concerning the applicants’
claims about the reduction of the value of their savings or the impossibility for them to recover their
savings.
328. Savings accounts can considerably depreciate as a result of inflation and economic reforms. In
cases relating to the reduction of the value of the applicants’ savings, while reiterating that Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 does not encompass the right to acquire property (Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.)),
the Court has held that a general obligation on States to maintain the purchasing power of sums
deposited with banking or financial institutions by way of a systematic indexation of savings or to
compensate for losses caused by inflation cannot be derived from that Article (Gayduk and Others
v. Ukraine (dec.); Appolonov v. Russia (dec.); Todorov v. Bulgaria (dec.); Poltorachenko v. Ukraine,
§ 38; Zbaranskaya v. Ukraine (dec.); Sherstyuk v. Ukraine (dec.); Boyajyan v. Armenia, § 54; Ryabykh
v. Russia, § 63; Dolneanu v. Moldova, § 31). Similarly, the Convention does not impose obligations on
States as regards their economic policy in dealing with the effects of inflation and other economic
phenomena, or requiring them to remedy such situations through legislation or judicial decision
(O.N. v. Bulgaria (dec.)). In cases in which the applicants contended that owing to the excessive
length of court proceedings and the effects of inflation over a protracted period the real value of
their claims had been considerably diminished, the State’s responsibility was found not to be
engaged and the complaints were declared inadmissible (Köksal v. Turkey (dec.), § 38; Grozeva
v. Bulgaria (dec.); O.N. v. Bulgaria (dec.)).
329. In a case concerning the reduction of the value of the applicant’s shares, and given the wide
margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States in this area, the Court held that the
measures taken by the National Bank of Poland were undeniably intended to protect the interests of
the bank’s customers who had entrusted their assets to the bank, and to avoid the heavy financial
losses that the bank’s bankruptcy would have entailed for its customers (Olczak v. Poland (dec.)).
330. Furthermore, the takeover of a private bank by the State authorities can be regarded as an
interference with the right to property of the former shareholders of the bank (Süzer and Eksen
Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey, §§ 143-144). It is for the Court to determine whether such interference meets
the requirement of lawfulness, the pursuit of a legitimate aim and being proportionate to the aim
pursued. When the decision to take over the bank is clearly taken as a measure to control the
banking sector in the country, the deprivation of property must be deemed as pursuing a legitimate
aim and the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must apply (Süzer and Eksen Holding A.Ş.
v. Turkey, §§ 146-147). In order to assess if such interference with the right to property is
proportionate to the aim pursued, it is for the Court to determine whether a fair balance has been
struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of

fundamental rights of the individuals concerned (Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. and Cıngıllıoğlu v. Turkey,
§§ 49-51).
331. However, the latter case of Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. and Cıngıllıoğlu v. Turkey, § 50, concerned the
transfer and the sale of Demirbank (at the time Turkey’s fifth largest private bank) by a decision of
the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 for the breach of the legality principle and it did not therefore go on to examine the
proportionality of the interference. In its subsequent just-satisfaction judgment, it held that
domestic law, as amended, enabled appropriate reparation after the Court has found a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and proceeded to the partial strike out of the case (Ibid., § 53).
332. In Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
when the Government adopted a decision on the recovery and restructuring of Croatia Bank that
revoked and cancelled all shares held by the bank’s shareholders. The applicant, a joint-stock
company that held 1251 shares in Croatia Bank, argued that the interference with its possessions
was not accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness and was thus not
lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court agreed with the applicant, finding
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the breach of the State’s procedural
obligations under that Article (Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, §§ 80-88, and 110).
333. In respect of proceedings relating to a withdrawal of a banking licence, the Court stressed that
any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” must be accompanied by procedural
guarantees affording to the individual or entity concerned a reasonable opportunity of presenting
their case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures
interfering with the rights guaranteed by this provision. In ascertaining whether this condition has
been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative
procedures (Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, § 134; see also Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, § 82).
334. The freezing of a bank account is usually considered a measure of control of the use of
property (Raimondo v. Italy, § 27, as regards the provisional seizure of assets with a view to their
forfeiture under proceeds-of-crime legislation; Luordo v. Italy, § 67; Valentin v. Denmark, §§ 67-72,
as regards the stripping of bankrupts of the right to administer and deal with their property;
Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey,* §§ 144 and 150-153, as regards the temporary injunctions freezing the
assets of the applicant - a former executive and director of two previously public banks - for a
lengthy period of time and the relevant factors for assessing the restrictions; Trajkovski v. the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), as regards the freezing of bank accounts). Due to the
applicants’ inability to withdraw their savings for more than twenty years and the complexity of the
situation, the freezing of the bank accounts was examined under the general rule in Ališić and Others
[GC]), § 99 (for further details, see below).
335. In the case of opening of winding-up proceedings against a bank, the freezing of the bank
accounts of the managers can be considered lawful and pursuing a legitimate aim as far as it has the
purpose to ensure that the managers of a bank which has fallen into insolvency would not dissipate
their assets in anticipation of possible criminal charges or civil claims relating to the way in which
they had run the bank before the insolvency (International Bank for Commerce and Development AD
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 123).
336. The stability of banks and the interests of their depositors and creditors deserve enhanced
protection. The national authorities enjoy a broad margin of appreciation in choosing how to deal
with such matters (Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, § 136; Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey,* § 150). In normal
circumstances, the freezing of the bank accounts of the managers of the bank, for a strictly limited
duration of six months, could be regarded as falling within that margin and therefore as a
proportionate measure to the aim pursued (International Bank for Commerce and Development AD
and Others v. Bulgaria, § 124).

337. Several cases before the Court concerned the “old” foreign-currency savings deposited at the
time of the SFRY which were frozen. After their independence, each Successor State to the SFRY
found a different legal solution to regulate the savings previously guaranteed by the SFRY (for an
overview of the specific circumstances pertaining to different respondent States, see Ališić and
Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia [GC], §§ 24-52). In that case, the “old” foreign-currency savings had become unavailable
owing to such factors as the lack of funds in the relevant banks, the imposition by law of a freezing
of the accounts and the failure by national authorities to take measures with a view to enabling
deposit holders in the applicants’ situation to dispose of their savings.
338. The Court has held that claims arising out of the foreign-currency savings deposited with a
commercial bank before the dissolution of the SFRY amounted to a “possession” within the meaning
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, §§ 34-36), as well as a claim against
the Russian Federation in respect of the investment of the savings in State premium loan bonds
issued by the former USSR (Yuriy Lobanov v. Russia, §§ 32-34) or in bond and certificates issued by
the USSR Saving Bank (Boyajyan v. Armenia, § 57). Similarly, securities having an economic value can
be regarded as “possessions” (Jasinskij and Others v. Lithuania, Commission decision).
339. However, as to the frozen foreign currency claims deposited by Latvian applicants with the
Bank of Foreign Economic Activities at the time of the USSR, the Court declared the applicants’
complaints inadmissible since the Bank’s actions could not be attributed to Latvia which had never
demonstrated any sign of acceptance or acknowledgement of such claims (Likvidējamā p/s Selga and
Vasiļevska v. Latvia (dec.), §§ 94-113).
340. In cases in which legislative measures were aimed at paying the “old” foreign-currency savings
in State bonds, the Court, having regard to the need to strike a fair balance between the general
interest and the right of property of the applicant, and of all those in the same situation, considered
that the means chosen were suited to achieving the legitimate aim pursued (in particular Trajkovski
v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.)).
341. Whatever measures concerning payment of “old” foreign-currency savings a State has decided
to adopt, the rule of law and the principle of lawfulness required Contracting Parties to respect and
apply, in a foreseeable and consistent manner, the laws they had enacted. The deficient
implementation of State legislation on “old” foreign-currency savings resulted in the failure of the
respondent State to comply with that obligation (Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 57).
342. In assessing whether a “fair balance” has been struck between the demands of the general
interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental
rights, the Court must make an overall examination of the various interests in issue, bearing in mind
that the Convention is intended to safeguard rights that are “practical and effective”. In that context,
it should be stressed that uncertainty – be it legislative, administrative or arising from practices
applied by the authorities – is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State’s conduct.
Indeed, where an issue in the general interest is at stake, it is incumbent on the public authorities to
act in good time, in an appropriate and consistent manner. Whereas some delays may be justified in
exceptional circumstances, the Court found in that particular case that the applicants had been
made to wait too long. The authorities of Slovenia and Serbia, notwithstanding their wide margin of
appreciation in this area, did not strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community
and the property rights of the applicants. A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found in
respect of these two respondent States (Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia,
Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], §§ 108 and 124-125).
343. Delays constitute an important factor in assessing the reasonableness of an interference with
property rights. Whereas some delays may be justified in view of the occurrence of exceptional
circumstances, in other cases the Court has concluded that they could not constitute a good reason

for the failure of the State to repay the applicants (Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 108).
344. A limit to States’ margin of appreciation arises when measures adopted by the national
authorities substantially limit the applicant’s right to dispose of funds and amount to a control of the
use of property. For instance, the Court found that legislative measures were unsatisfactory if they
resulted in delays of several months (Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 64).
345. Also, the impossibility of obtaining the execution of a final judgment in an applicant’s favour
constituted an interference with his or her right to the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” in the
context of the “old” foreign-currency savings (Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 48).
D. Taxation
346. Taxation is in principle an interference with the right guaranteed by the first paragraph of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since it deprives the person concerned of a possession, namely the
amount of money which must be paid (Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 59; Špaček, s.r.o., v. the
Czech Republic, § 39).
347. The interference for taxation purposes is generally justified under the second paragraph of this
Article, which expressly provides for an exception as regards the payment of taxes or other
contributions (Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, § 59; Christian Religious
Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.), § 43).
348. The issue nonetheless comes under the Court’s purview, since the correct application of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is subject to its supervision (Orion-Břeclav, S.R.O. v. the Czech Republic
(dec.)). A financial liability arising out of the raising of taxes may adversely affect the guarantee of
ownership if it places an excessive burden on the person concerned or fundamentally interferes with
his financial position (Ferretti v. Italy, Commission decision; Wasa Liv Ömsesidigt, Försäkringsbolaget
Valands Pensionsstiftelse and a group of approximately 15,000 individuals v. Sweden, Commission
Decision; Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation v. Italy, § 32).
349. The State is generally allowed a wide margin of appreciation under the Convention when it
comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (Wallishauser v. Austria (no. 2), § 65; as
well as when framing and implementing policy in the area of taxation (“Bulves” AD v. Bulgaria, § 63;
Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, § 60; Stere and Others v. Romania, § 51).
The Court respects the legislature’s assessment in such matters unless it is devoid of reasonable
foundation (Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, § 60).
350. Furthermore, the Court’s well-established position is that States may be afforded some degree
of additional deference and latitude in the exercise of their fiscal functions under the lawfulness test
(Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.), § 50).
351. It is first and foremost for the national authorities to decide on the type of tax or contributions
they wish to levy. Decisions in this area normally involve, in addition, an assessment of political,
economic and social problems which the Convention leaves to the competence of the member
States, as the domestic authorities are clearly better placed than the Convention organs to assess
such problems (Musa v. Austria, Commission decision; Baláž v. Slovakia (dec.); Azienda Agricola
Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, § 103; R.Sz. v. Hungary, §§ 38 and 46; Christian Religious
Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.), § 45). It is also for the domestic legislature to
make choices as to what may be classified as taxable income and what should be the concrete
means of enforcement of tax liability (Cacciato v. Italy (dec.), § 25; Guiso and Consiglio v. Italy (dec.),
§ 44). Specifically, in a complex sphere such as the imposition of value added taxation (VAT), the
respondent State should be afforded a particularly wide margin of appreciation (Christian Religious
Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.), § 51).

352. Delay in reimbursement of overpaid taxes amounted to a violation (Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation
v. Italy, § 39 – the Court considering that delays ranging from five to ten years had a serious impact
on the applicant company’s financial situation which could not be compensated by payment of
merely simple interest on the amounts due, caused uncertainty for the taxpayer and was
additionally compounded by lack of any legal avenues to remedy the situation.
353. Likewise, an inability to obtain the reimbursement of overpaid tax in respect of which the
domestic authorities acknowledged that it had been paid in violation of the applicable substantive
law gave rise to a violation: both the negation of the applicant company’s claim against the State and
the absence of domestic procedures affording a sufficient remedy to ensure the protection of the
applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its “possessions” upset the fair balance (S.A.
Dangeville v. France, § 61).
354. A discrepancy between the value of property taken for the purpose of calculating
compensation for expropriation and for inheritance tax led the Court to find a violation on grounds
of arbitrariness (Jokela v. Finland, § 65).
355. The mere fact that tax legislation is of a retroactive character does not, as such, give rise to a
violation (e.g. retroactive law to make certain transactions subject to tax (M.A. and 34 Others
v. Finland (dec.)).
356. Enforcement measures in the context of tax proceedings which were not automatically
suspended when a debtor appealed against them were considered acceptable and falling within the
State’s wide margin of appreciation, but they must be accompanied by procedural safeguards to
ensure that individuals are not put in a position where their appeals are effectively circumscribed
and they are unable to protect their interests effectively. One of the important factors here is
whether there was some reasonable degree of communication between the public authorities
involved, allowing for protection of the taxpayers’ rights (Rousk v. Sweden, § 124).
357. The mere fact that the tax rate is very high does not per se give rise to a breach; the Court
examines the applicant’ tax rate (R.Sz. v. Hungary, § 54). Taxation at a considerably higher tax rate
than that in force when the revenue in question was generated could arguably be regarded as an
unreasonable interference with expectations protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (M.A. and 34
Others v. Finland (dec.)).
358. In a case where a dismissed civil servant was obliged to pay tax on her severance pay at an
overall rate of 52%, the Court found a violation on the following grounds: this rate had considerably
exceeded the rate applied to all other revenues; the applicant had suffered a substantial loss of
income as a result of her unemployment; and the tax had been directly deducted by the employer
from the severance pay without any individualised assessment of her situation and had been
imposed on income related to activities occurring prior to the material tax year (N.K.M. v. Hungary,
§§ 66-74). Conversely, the Court found that up to 30% VAT on the customs value of a shipment could
not, from the quantitative standpoint, be considered exorbitant. Thus, the levying of VAT on the
applicant organisation’s imports of religious literature did not upset the balance to be struck
between the protection of the applicant’s rights and the public interest in securing taxes (Christian
Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.), §§ 53 and 55).
359. Also in the context of tax proceedings, the Court attaches importance to the availability of
procedural safeguards in the relevant proceedings (compare Agosi v. the United Kingdom, § 55). Fair
balance was upset in cases where the national authorities, in the absence of any indication of direct
involvement by an individual or entity in fraudulent abuse of a VAT chain of supply, or knowledge
thereof, nevertheless penalised the fully compliant recipient of a VAT-taxable supply for the actions
or inactions of a supplier over which it had no control and in relation to which it had no means of
monitoring or securing compliance (“Bulves” AD v. Bulgaria, §§ 67-71).

E. Land planning
360. The rights of owners are, with regard to issues of urban or regional planning, essentially
evolutive. Urban and regional planning policies are, par excellence, spheres in which the State
intervenes, particularly through control of property in the general or public interest. In such
circumstances, where the community’s general interest is pre-eminent, the Court takes the view
that the State’s margin of appreciation is wider than when exclusively civil rights are at stake
(Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, § 70; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, § 55; Chapman v. the
United Kingdom [GC], § 104).
361. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the mere fact that a person owns a piece of land does not,
per se, confer a right on the owner to build on that land. It is permissible under this provision to
impose and maintain various building restrictions.
362. The Court examined a number of cases concerning restrictions imposed on landowners in the
context of spatial planning, sometimes lasting for many years (Skibińscy v. Poland, § 98; Skrzyński
v. Poland, § 92; Rosiński v. Poland, § 89; Buczkiewicz v. Poland, § 77; Pietrzak v. Poland, § 115; Hakan
Arı v. Turkey, § 36; Rossitto v. Italy, § 37; Maioli v. Italy, § 52; Hüseyin Kaplan v. Turkey, § 38; Ziya
Çevik v. Turkey, § 33). In Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], §§ 100-105, which was a case concerning
exceptional circumstances, such restrictions, even when they were imposed on a permanent basis
and without any right to obtain compensation, were found to be in compliance with this provision.
Applications were declared inadmissible in cases concerning an absolute prohibition on building,
accompanied by an inability to claim compensation from the municipality, where the owners had
neither manifested an intention to build nor shown that the prohibition had obliged them to alter
the use to which the property was put (Scagliarini v. Italy (dec.)); or where, in the absence of
modification of use, the applicant had waited for a long time before applying for a building permit
(Galtieri v. Italy (dec.)). In other cases, a violation was found even in the absence of a concrete
building project and on the grounds that the legislature had first enacted laws providing for a right to
compensation for expropriation, but subsequently repeatedly postponed the entry into force of
those laws (Skibińscy v. Poland, § 78).
363. The unlawful occupation of privately owned land by the public authorities with a view to
implementing development projects, creating a mechanism which enabled the authorities to benefit
from an unlawful situation in which the landowner was presented with a fait accompli, was found to
be in breach of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of “possessions” (Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l.
v. Italy, § 59).
364. The Court emphasised that the difficulties in enacting a comprehensive legal framework in the
area of urban planning constitute part of the process of transition from a socialist legal order and its
property regime to one compatible with the rule of law and the market economy – a process which,
by the very nature of things, is fraught with difficulties. However, these difficulties and the enormity
of the tasks facing legislators having to deal with all the complex issues involved in such a transition
do not exempt the Member States from the obligations stemming from the Convention or its
Protocols (Schirmer v. Poland, § 38; Skibińscy v. Poland, § 96).
F. Confiscation of the proceeds of crime

365. In a number of cases the Court examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 various measures
taken for the purposes of combating unlawful enrichment from the proceeds of crime. In such cases,
States have a wide margin of appreciation in implementing policies to fight crime, including
confiscation of property that is presumed to be of unlawful origin (Raimondo v. Italy, § 30; Riela and
Others v. Italy (dec.); Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.); Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, § 108),
property purchased with illicit funds (Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.)), proceeds of a criminal offence
(productum sceleris) (Phillips v. the United Kingdom; Silickienė v. Lithuania; Gogitidze and Others

v. Georgia), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (Agosi v. the United
Kingdom; Sun v. Russia; Ismayilov v. Russia), or property that had served, or had been intended to
serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia; S.C. Service Benz
Com S.R.L. v. Romania; Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Markus v. Latvia, § 69, for the
recapitulation of different situations).
366. Depending on the legal framework in member States, such confiscation may take place in
criminal proceedings usually conditioned by a conviction or outside criminal proceedings when
certain conditions are fulfilled. Another special procedure is the one in which the property of the
perpetrator or other persons is confiscated based on a mere presumption that it derives from crime.
This is usually called extended confiscation, considered as an ancillary and auxiliary form of ordinary
confiscation. Furthermore, Italy has in place preventive confiscation measures of an administrative
character, in particular to combat organised crime. Finally, certain jurisdictions, such as the United
Kingdom, also have a civil-law approach to confiscation: this model of confiscation is not based on
the perpetrator’s guilt, but on the origin of the property.
367. The Court observed in Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, § 105, that common European and
even universal legal standards can be said to exist which encourage, in the first place, the
confiscation of property linked to serious criminal offences such as corruption, money laundering,
drug offences and so on, without the prior existence of a criminal conviction. Secondly, the onus of
proving the lawful origin of the property presumed to have been wrongfully acquired may
legitimately be shifted onto the respondents in such non-criminal proceedings for confiscation,
including civil proceedings in rem. Thirdly, confiscation measures may be applied, not only to the
direct proceeds of crime but also to property, including any incomes and other indirect benefits,
obtained by converting or transforming the direct proceeds of crime or intermingling them with
other, possibly lawful, assets. Finally, confiscation measures may be applied, not only to persons
directly suspected of criminal offences, but also to any third parties with ownership rights without
the requisite bona fide with a view to disguising their wrongful role in amassing the wealth in
question.
368. Forfeiture measures may be acceptable if effected in accordance with the general interest in
ensuring that the use of the property in question did not procure an advantage for a person
convicted of a criminal charge to the detriment of the community (Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), § 66).
369. The Court has also noted that States have a legitimate interest and also a duty, by virtue of
various international treaties, to implement measures to detect and monitor the movement of cash
across their borders, since large amounts of cash may be used for money laundering, drug
trafficking, financing terrorism or organised crime, tax evasion or the commission of other serious
financial offences. Confiscation measures taken when individuals fail to declare cash when crossing
borders therefore conform to the general interests of the community (Karapetyan v. Georgia, § 34).
370. The Court treats confiscation mainly as a control of the use of property within the meaning of
the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, § 63; Agosi
v. the United Kingdom, § 51; Karapetyan v. Georgia, § 32; Aktiva DOO v. Serbia, § 78), even though
confiscation, by its very nature, deprives a person of ownership.
371. Indeed, the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inter alia allows the Contracting
States to control the use of property to secure the payment of penalties. Thus, in cases concerning
the confiscation of the proceeds of a criminal offence which followed on the conviction, the Court
has habitually treated the confiscation as a control of use of property (Phillips v. the United Kingdom,
§ 51; see also Welch v. the United Kingdom, § 26, under Article 7 of the Convention; Van Offeren
v. Netherlands (dec.), under Article 6 of the Convention). The second paragraph of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 has to be construed in the light of the general principle set out in the first sentence of
the first paragraph which requires that there exist a reasonable relationship of proportionality

between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (Phillips v. the United Kingdom,
§§ 51-52; Balsamo v. San Marino, § 81).
372. The same approach was taken in situations where confiscation measures were implemented
independently of a criminal charge because the assets concerned were considered as unlawfully
acquired, their lawful origin had not been demonstrated, or they had been the instruments of crime
(Raimondo v. Italy, § 27; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.); Sun v. Russia, § 25; Arcuri and Others v. Italy
(dec.); C.M. v. France (dec.); Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, § 34; Gogitidze and Others
v. Georgia, §§ 94 and 97, concerning a confiscation applied in civil proceedings; Balsamo v. San
Marino, § 81, concerning money laundering proceedings; Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), §§ 62-68,
concerning subsequent proceedings instituted under a law on seizure and confiscation of the
proceeds from crime which was not considered to be criminal in nature).
373. Furthermore, the Court has also treated confiscation as a control of the use of property where
the applicant’s property was confiscated as a criminal punishment regardless of the manner of its
acquisition and of any relation to the offence (Markus v. Latvia, §§ 69-70; for further details see
above the chapter on Principle of lawfulness).
374. Exceptionally, the Court has analysed the interference as a deprivation of possessions where
the confiscation of an instrument of crime concerns the property of third parties and amounts to a
permanent measure (see also above the chapter on Control of use; Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, § 36; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, § 48; Yașar
v. Romania, § 49; Aktiva DOO v. Serbia, § 78).
375. Sometimes, the Court abstained from determining whether the interference at issue was a
deprivation of possessions or a control of use because it considered it unnecessary to do so. Instead,
it proceeded directly to examining whether there was a violation of the principles of legality,
legitimate aim, and proportionality (Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, § 55; Aktiva DOO v. Serbia,
§§ 78 and 82).
376. In a number of cases the Court has applied the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to different procedures for the forfeiture of property linked to the alleged commission of
various serious offences. As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in
part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Butler v. the
United Kingdom (dec.)) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (Arcuri and Others
v. Italy (dec.); Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.)) or from other illicit mafia-type activities
(Raimondo v. Italy, § 30), the Court accepted that the confiscation measures were proportionate,
even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused (Balsamo v. San Marino, §
90).
377. Where confiscation was imposed independently of a criminal charge against third parties, the
Court accepted that the authorities may apply confiscation measures not only to persons directly
accused of offences but also to their family members and other close relatives who were presumed
to possess and manage the ill-gotten property informally on behalf of the suspected offenders, or
who otherwise lacked the necessary bona fide status (Raimondo v. Italy, § 30; Arcuri and Others
v. Italy (dec.); Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.); Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Webb v. the
United Kingdom (dec.); Saccoccia v. Austria, § 88; Silickienė v. Lithuania, § 65, where a confiscation
measure was imposed on the widow of a corrupt public official; Balsamo v. San Marino, §§ 89 and
93, where a confiscation measure was imposed also on the children on account of their father’s
previous criminal record).
378. Confiscation in such cases is sought to prevent the unlawful use of “possessions” whose lawful
origin has not been established, especially if they are being used in a manner dangerous to society.
The Court noted the difficulties encountered by the public authorities in the fight against organised
crime. Confiscation, which is designed to block these movements of suspect capital, is an effective

and necessary weapon in that context. A confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired
property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal
activities, and also ensures that crime does not pay (Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, § 58; Phillips
v. the United Kingdom, § 52; Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), under Articles 6
and 7).
379. Article 6 of the Convention generally does not prevent States from having recourse to
presumptions. In proceedings concerning various forms of confiscation or fiscal repression the public
authorities may act on the presumption that the assets were acquired unlawfully (Salabiaku
v. France, § 28). The same approach has been used in the context of complaints about presumptions
made in this context either under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Cacucci and Sabatelli v. Italy (dec.),
§ 43; Yildrim v. Italy (dec.); or under Article 6 (shifting the burden of proof onto the applicant to
show that his assets had been lawfully acquired (Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, § 45;
Phillips v. the United Kingdom, § 43; Perre v. Italy (dec.), for the examination of a witness). Use of
presumptions, if the party has been given an opportunity to rebut the presumptions, is compatible
with the presumption of innocence. Conversely, a violation of Article 6 § 2 was found in a case where
a confiscation order was given in respect of goods despite the owner having been acquitted in
criminal proceedings of the crime from which the proceeds had allegedly originated (Geerings
v. Netherlands, §§ 43-51).
380. The Court also found it legitimate for the relevant domestic authorities to issue confiscation
orders on the basis of a preponderance of evidence which suggested that the respondents’ lawful
incomes could not have sufficed for them to acquire the property in question. Whenever a
confiscation order was the result of civil proceedings in rem which related to the proceeds of crime
derived from serious offences, the Court did not require proof “beyond reasonable doubt” of the
illicit origins of the property in such proceedings. Instead, proof on a balance of probabilities or a
high probability of illicit origins, combined with the inability of the owner to prove the contrary, was
found to suffice for the purposes of the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Balsamo v. San Marino, § 91).
381. The Court attached importance to various procedural guarantees available in confiscation
proceedings, such as their adversarial nature (Yildirim v. Italy (dec.); Perre v. Italy (dec.)); advance
disclosure of the prosecution case (Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, § 45); opportunity
for the party to adduce documentary and oral evidence (Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Perre
v. Italy (dec.)), possibility of being legally represented by a privately hired lawyer (Butler v. the United
Kingdom (dec.)); assumption of the criminal character of the assets can be rebutted by the party
(Geerings v. Netherlands, § 44); a judge having the discretion not to apply the assumption if he/she
considered that applying it would give rise to a serious risk of injustice (Phillips v. the United
Kingdom, § 43); whether an individual assessment of which pieces of property should be confiscated
in the light of the facts of the case has been carried out (Rummi v. Estonia, § 108; Silickienė
v. Lithuania, § 68); on the whole, whether the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity of
putting his arguments before the domestic courts (Veits v. Estonia, §§ 72 and 74; Jokela v. Finland,
§ 45; Balsamo v. San Marino, § 93); regard being had to a comprehensive view of the proceedings
concerned (Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, § 59).
382. Finally, in addition to the general procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], § 302), certain factors are relevant to determine the
proportionality of a confiscation measure: notably its duration, although this is not definitive (OOO
Avrora Maloetazhnoe Stroitelstvo v. Russia, § 69); the necessity to maintain it having regard to the
course of criminal proceedings as well as its consequences for the interested party (Lachikhina v.
Russia, § 59); the behaviour of the applicant and the interfering State authorities (Forminster
Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic, § 75); and the availability of an effective remedy, including
access to courts, by which an applicant can challenge the (continuing) seizure (Benet Czech, spol. s
r.o. v. the Czech Republic, § 49).

G. Restitution of property
383. After the democratic changes in Central and Eastern Europe, many Governments introduced
legislation providing for the restitution of property expropriated in the aftermath of the Second
World War or dealt with restitution within the existing legal framework.
384. In respect of the taking of property before the ratification of the Convention and its Protocols,
the Convention organs have consistently held that deprivation of ownership or of another right in
rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of “deprivation
of a right” (Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC]; Preußische Treuhand GmbH & Co. KG a.A.
v. Poland (dec.), § 57).
385. Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as imposing any general
obligation on the Contracting States to return property which was transferred to them before they
ratified the Convention (Jantner v. Slovakia, § 34).
386. Neither does Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 impose any restrictions on the Contracting States’
freedom to determine the scope of property restitution and to choose the conditions under which
they agree to restore property rights of former owners (Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania,
§ 136). In particular, the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation with regard to the
exclusion of certain categories of former owners from such entitlement. Where categories of owners
are excluded in this way, their claims for restitution cannot provide the basis for a “legitimate
expectation” attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Gratzinger and Gratzingerova
v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], §§ 70-74; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35; Smiljanić v. Slovenia (dec.),
§ 29).
387. Thus, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise
effectively cannot be considered a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (Malhous
v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC]; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35). The belief that a law previously in
force would be changed to an applicant’s advantage cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate
expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There is a difference between a mere
hope of restitution, however understandable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, which
must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act
such as a judicial decision (Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], § 73; Von
Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], § 112).
388. On the other hand, once a Contracting State, having ratified the Convention including Protocol
No. 1, enacts legislation providing for the full or partial restoration of property confiscated under a
previous regime, such legislation may be regarded as generating a new property right protected by
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying the requirements for entitlement (Maria Atanasiu
and Others v. Romania, § 136). The same may apply in respect of arrangements for restitution or
compensation established under pre-ratification legislation, if such legislation remained in force
after the Contracting State’s ratification of Protocol No. 1 (Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany
(dec.) [GC], § 74; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], § 35; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 125).
389. Therefore, as regards the content and scope of the right in question, the Court has observed
that that issue must be seen from the perspective of what “possessions” the applicant had on the
date of the Protocol’s entry into force and, critically, on the date on which he submitted his
complaint to the Convention institutions (Broniowski v. Poland [GC], §§ 125 and 132). In that case,
the applicant’s entitlement to compensatory property was vested in him by Polish legislation –
granting rights to persons repatriated from beyond the Bug River after the Second World War, or
their heirs – which remained in force on the date of the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 for Poland.

390. As to the implementation of the undertaken reforms, the rule of law underlying the
Convention and the principle of lawfulness in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 require States not only to
respect and apply, in a foreseeable and consistent manner, the laws they have enacted, but also, as
a corollary of this duty, to ensure the legal and practical conditions for their implementation
(Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 184).
391. A number of cases in the field of the restitution of property concerned the domestic
authorities’ failure to enforce the final judicial (or administrative) decisions. A judgment placing the
authorities under an obligation to afford compensation, in land or money, in accordance with the
domestic legislation on restitution of property rights, provides the applicant with an enforceable
claim such as to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Jasiūniene v. Lithuania, § 44). Therefore, where there is a final court judgment in the claimant’s
favour, the concept of “legitimate expectation” can come into play (Driza v. Albania, § 102).
392. Non-enforcement of final decisions, coupled with other shortcomings in the Romanian system
of restitution of property, gave rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in Maria Atanasiu and
Others v. Romania, as well as to a pilot judgment procedure (ibid., §§ 215-218). Similarly, in the pilot
judgment Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, §§ 110-118, the Court held that there had been a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of a
final decision that had awarded the applicants compensation in lieu of restitution of their property.
In Beshiri and Others v. Albania (dec.) the Court reviewed the new domestic scheme/remedy
introduced in Albania in response to that pilot judgment. Noting the State´s wide margin of
appreciation as regards the choice of forms of redress for breaches of property rights (ibid., § 188),
the Court found the new remedy to be effective having regard to the following considerations: a)
appropriateness of the form of redress (ibid., § 188); b) adequacy of the compensation (ibid., §§ 189-
203); and c) accessibility and efficiency of the remedy (ibid., §§ 204-214). As to the adequacy of the
compensation, the Court acknowledged the exceptionally difficult and complex situation and
concluded that the minimum threshold for the amount of compensation of 10% of the current value
of the original property could be considered reasonable in the specific context of Albania (ibid., §§
194-196). At the same time it acknowledged that its assessment of the new remedy may be subject
to review in the future depending on whether the remedies continued to comply with the
Convention requirements in practice (ibid., § 222).
393. The case Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, §§ 55, 57 and 61, concerned the non-
enforcement of domestic decisions, granting the applicants the right to have the entirety of their
land returned, including the portion of land where a church had been built after their deportation.
The Court found a violation and ordered the State to take all necessary measures to ensure the
enforcement of the decision in the applicants’ favour, including the removal of the church from their
land (ibid., §§ 68-71).
394. As to the justification a Government may advance for its interference with the applicant’s right
to property, the Court has reiterated that a lack of funds cannot justify a failure to enforce a final
and binding judgment debt owed by the State (Driza v. Albania, § 108; Prodan v. Moldova, § 61).
395. Only very exceptionally, for instance in the unique context of German reunification, the Court
has accepted that the lack of any compensation did not upset the “fair balance” that has to be struck
between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest (Jahn and Others
v. Germany [GC], § 117). In general, what Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 requires is that the amount of
compensation granted for property taken by the State be “reasonably related” to its value
(Broniowski v. Poland [GC], § 186). This applies also to compensatory entitlements granted by
legislation. The Court accepted the reduction of the level of compensation for appropriated land,
enacted by amending the subordinate legislation during pending domestic administrative
proceedings, as long as such reduction serves the general interest of protecting the public purse and

the awarded compensation did not appear to be unreasonably low (Serbian Orthodox Church
v. Croatia, §§ 62, 65-68).
396. Furthermore, some of the cases brought before the Court concerned failure to respect the res
judicata effect of a final judgment resulting in the annulment of the applicant’s property title
without compensation. In such circumstances, the Court has found that the breach of the principle
of legal certainty results in breach of the requirement of lawfulness under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Parvanov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 50; Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria, § 76; Chengelyan and Others
v. Bulgaria, §§ 49-50). The requirement of lawfulness means not only compliance with the relevant
provisions of domestic law, but also compatibility with the rule of law. It thus implies that there
should be protection from arbitrary action (Parvanov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 44).
397. Thus, in view of contradictory holdings of the domestic courts and failure of a domestic court
to explain why it departs from the apparent logic of a previous judgment, the deprivation of an
applicant’s “possessions” cannot be compatible with the rule of law and free of arbitrariness and
cannot thus meet the requirement of lawfulness under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Parvanov and
Others v. Bulgaria, § 50). Similarly, the Court noted under Article 6 that, in the particular context of
the restitution of nationalised properties in Romania, the lack of legislative coherence and the
conflicting case-law on the interpretation of certain aspects of the restitution laws created a general
climate of lack of legal certainty (Tudor Tudor v. Romania, § 27).
398. Furthermore, the coexistence of two title deeds to the same property and the lack of
compensation for the owner unable to enjoy his “possessions” have given rise to the finding of a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many of the Court’s judgments (the first of which was Străin
and Others v. Romania, §§ 46-47 This approach was confirmed more recently in Dickmann and Gion
v. Romania, §§ 103-04), where the Court has also considered it necessary to ensure that the
attenuation of “old injuries” sustained as a result of infringements of property rights by the
communist regime should not create disproportionate new wrongs (ibid., § 96).
399. The Court has also had the opportunity to examine the situation of owners who, having
acquired their property in good faith, were subsequently dispossessed because others were
acknowledged as the rightful owners (Toşcuţă and Others v. Romania, § 33).
400. In particular, the sale by the State of a person’s property to a third party acting in good faith,
even where it precedes the final judicial confirmation of the other person’s title, amounts to a
deprivation of property. Such a deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, is contrary
to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Vodă and Bob v. Romania, § 23). In the case of Katz v. Romania,
§§ 30-36, the Court found that the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 revealed a widespread
problem caused by faulty legislation on the restitution of nationalised buildings which had been sold
by the State to third parties, who had purchased them in good faith, and that even numerous
amendments to the law had failed to improve the situation. The Court saw this failure of the State to
put its legislation in order not only as an aggravating factor but also as a threat to the future
effectiveness of the Convention machinery under Article 46 of the Convention. This remained
problematic in Preda and Others v. Romania, §§ 146-148, the follow-up judgment to Maria Atanasiu
and Others v. Romania, as underlined also in Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, §29.
401. In Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic the applicants complained of a violation of their
ownership rights, submitting that they had acquired the house in good faith in 1967, unaware that
the property had previously been confiscated and with no control over the details of the transaction
or the purchase price. The Court considered it necessary to ensure that the attenuation of old
injuries did not create disproportionate new wrongs. To that end, the legislation should make it
possible to take into account the particular circumstances of each case, so that persons who
acquired their “possessions” in good faith were not made to bear the burden of responsibility which
was rightfully that of the State which once confiscated those “possessions” (ibid., § 58). A violation
was found in that case (also Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, §§ 72-74). The proportionality

of measures which – with the aim to compensate persons from whom property had been arbitrarily
taken by the communist regime – had deprived other individuals of property they had purchased
from the State was also at stake in Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, §§ 181 and 190.
402. In addition, excessive length of restitution proceedings has given rise to a breach of Article 6 in
a number of cases, for example, against Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (Sirc v. Slovenia, § 182). In
such cases, the Court often considered it unnecessary to determine the applicants’ complaints based
on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, where the delays took place in proceedings following the
recognition of the applicant’s property rights, the Court has found a separate breach of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, notably because of the state of uncertainty in which the applicants found themselves
as to the fate of their property (Igarienė and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, §§ 55 and 58; Beinarovič and
Others v. Lithuania, §§ 141 and 154). In the case of Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, §§ 120-121,
significant delays occurred in delivering flats offered as compensation for the expropriation of their
properties to the applicants.
403. Finally, in Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria, §§ 45-53, concerning the restitution of agricultural
land, collectivised by the communist regime, to its owners or their heirs, a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 was found on account of the domestic authorities’ inertia in completing
the various formalities required.
H. State-owned companies
404. In deciding whether a company’s acts or omissions are attributable under the Convention to
the authority concerned or else to the responsible member State, the Court will have regard to such
factors as listed in the case of Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), § 26, in the context of Article
34 of the Convention. The Court will notably have to consider whether the company enjoyed
sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State to absolve the latter from its
responsibility under the Convention for its acts and omissions (Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine,
§ 44; Shlepkin v. Russia, § 24; Ljubljanska banka d.d. v. Croatia (dec.), §§ 51-55; Liseytseva and
Maslov v. Russia, § 151; Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, §§ 93-100 and 117). There is nothing in the
text of Article 34 to suggest that the term “non-governmental organisation” could be construed so
as to exclude only those governmental organisations which could be regarded as a part of the
respondent State (Croatian Chamber of Economy v. Serbia (dec.), § 38).
405. The so-called “institutional and operational independence” test, to which the Court has
referred in many cases, is directly derived from the criteria summed up in Radio France decision. In
this connection, the Court takes into account a variety of factors, none of which appears to be
determinative on its own, in its assessment as to whether a legal entity, notably, a State-owned
company is considered as a “governmental organisation” within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention.
406. The key criteria to determine whether the State was indeed responsible for such debts are as
follows: the company’s legal status (under public or private law); the nature of its activity (a public
function or an ordinary commercial business); the context of its operation (such as a monopoly or
heavily regulated business); its institutional independence (the extent of State ownership); and its
operational independence (the extent of State supervision and control) (Ališić and Others v. Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC],
§ 114; Fomenko and Others (dec.), § 172; Tokel v. Turkey, § 58).
407. When establishing State responsibility for the debts of a State-owned company, further
additional factors also appear to be taken into account, such as the role played by the State with
respect to the difficult situation in which the company found itself, i.e. insolvency, or whether the
State can be assumed to have accepted responsibility for the debts of the company fully or in part
(compare, Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, §§ 184-192).

408. Accordingly, when such elements are present, the public nature of the debtor company can be
confirmed regardless of its formal classification under domestic law. Therefore, where sufficient
grounds, in the specific circumstances of the case, make it possible to conclude that the State is
liable for the company’s debts to the applicants, the Court will conclude that the applicants’
complaint is compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. For instance, in
Tokel v. Turkey, the Court noted that Ҫaykur, a State-owned enterprise specialising in the production
of tea, was a legal entity subject to provisions of private law, the liability of which was limited to its
capital. It operated in the tea market together with private tea companies, without any monopoly,
and was subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Nevertheless, Ҫaykur’s entire capital had
always been owned by the State. It was categorised as a public economic institution, a type of State-
owned enterprise which, by definition, carried out public services and benefited from concessions
for the products it produced. The Court considered that, notwithstanding its formal classification
under domestic law, in view of the legislation in force at the material time, Ҫaykur’s independence
was limited by the existence of strong institutional and operational links with the State. Therefore,
the State authorities’ supervision and control over Ҫaykur’s investment plans was a decisive
consideration in the case (Tokel v. Turkey, §§ 58-64).
409. When the State is the majority shareholder of a private company the Court concluded that,
despite the company in question being a separate legal entity, it did not enjoy sufficient institutional
and operational independence from the State if (i) its assets are to a large extent controlled and
managed by the State; (ii) the State had, and exercised, the power to take measures aimed at
improving the company’s financial situation by various means such as annulling, even if only
temporarily, the arrears levied on it by the courts or by fostering investments in the company, and
(iii) the Government itself had accepted a certain degree of responsibility for the debts of the
company (Khachatryan v. Armenia, §§ 51-54).
410. However, when the respondent company with separate legal personality has the ability to own
assets that are distinct from the property of its shareholders and has delegated management, the
State, like any other shareholder, shall only be liable for debts in the amount invested in the
company’s shares (Anokhin v. Russia (dec.)).
411. In particular, as to the companies under the regime of social ownership, which was widely used
in the SFRY, the Court has held that they do not, in general, enjoy “sufficient institutional and
operational independence from the State” to absolve the latter from its responsibility under the
Convention (R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, § 98; Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, § 44; Zastava
It Turs v. Serbia (dec.), §§ 21-23).
412. Furthermore, the Court held that the parameters developed in relation to State-owned
companies other than financial institutions, could also apply to cases concerning State-owned banks
(Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and The Former Yugoslav
Republic Of Macedonia [GC], § 116). Indeed, the key criteria recalled to determine whether the State
shall be held responsible for banking debts are the same as the Court identified in its Radio France
decision.
413. In Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 114, the Court recalled that a State might be responsible for
the debts of a State-owned company, even if the company was a separate legal entity, provided that
it did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State to absolve the
latter from its responsibility under the Convention (Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, §§ 43-46;
Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, §§ 17-19; Yershova v. Russia, §§ 54-63; Kotov
v. Russia [GC], §§ 92-107).
414. In addition to the factors mentioned above, the Court took the view that even the additional
factors developed in the case-law relating to companies other than financial institutions can apply to
cases concerning State-owned banks (Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia,

Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], § 115). The cases in question
concerned the question whether the State was directly responsible for the company’s financial
difficulties, siphoned the corporate funds to the detriment of the company and its stakeholders,
failed to keep an arm’s-length relationship with the company or otherwise acted in abuse of the
corporate form (Anokhin v. Russia (dec.); Khachatryan v. Armenia, §§ 51-55).
415. Finally, it is also worth mentioning the Court’s effort to clarify the legal status of insolvency
liquidators. To examine whether the liquidator can be considered to have acted as a State agent, the
Court has examined different criteria, such as: i) validation of the liquidator’s appointment (whether
validation entails any State responsibility for the way in which the liquidator discharged his duties);
ii) supervision and accountability (whether the State holds responsibility for the liquidator’s acts,
whereas he was liable before the creditors); iii) objectives (nature of the liquidator’s tasks and
interests served, i.e. according to the Court, the mere fact that services might also have been socially
useful does not turn the liquidator into a public official acting in the public interest); iv) powers
(whether limited to the operational control and management of the insolvent company’s property
and whether there is formal delegation of powers by any governmental authority); and v) functions
(whether liquidators are involved in the enforcement proceedings and have been given coercive
powers) (in particular Kotov v. Russia [GC], §§ 92-98 and 99-106), which concerned the inability of
the applicant to recover damages from a liquidator appointed to manage the property of a bank
declared insolvent by a court).
416. In that case the liquidator, at the relevant time, enjoyed a considerable amount of operational
and institutional independence and the State authorities were not empowered to give instructions
to him and therefore could not directly interfere with the liquidation process as such, so that it could
be concluded that the liquidator had not acted as a State agent (Kotov v. Russia [GC], § 107).
Consequently, the respondent State was not to be held directly responsible for his wrongful acts.
I. Austerity measures
417. The Court has considered a number of cases where the applicants complained about various
aspects of austerity measures, taken by Contracting Parties in response to financial crises. These
included reductions of social insurance and salary entitlements as well as tax measures which were
often found to comply with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 requirements. The Court took into account
that the measures were taken to offset the consequences of an economic crisis, that the authorities
had had the public interest in mind, that a particular measure had been part of a much wider
programme, that they had not been disproportionate and had not represented a threat to the
applicants’ livelihood, and that they were of a temporary nature (Mockienė v. Lithuania (dec.), § 48;
Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 46; Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), §§ 92-94; Da
Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), § 29; Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.),
§§ 37-49). The Court has recognised that States have a wide discretion when enacting laws in the
context of a change of political or economic regime (Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, § 96).
418. Some of the measures accepted by the Court have resulted in a temporary reduction of income
for certain segments of the population. In 2010 Romania reduced public-sector wages by 25% for six
months in order to balance the State budget (Mihăieş and Senteş v. Romania (dec.), § 8). In 2012
Portugal reduced the holiday and Christmas allowances payable to certain categories of public-
sector pensioners whose monthly pensions were higher than EUR 600 and suspended them
altogether for pensioners whose monthly pensions were higher than EUR 1,100, which in the cases
of two applicants led to a reduction of pension payments approaching 11% (Da Conceição Mateus
and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), § 6).
419. Others have taken the form of a temporary additional income tax. In 2013 Portugal subjected
public-sector pensions to a solidarity contribution of 3,5% on a part corresponding to the first EUR

1,800 a month and 16% on the part exceeding it, which in the case before the Court reduced the
applicant’s pension income by 4,6% (Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), § 8).
420. Others measures still have resulted in a permanent or semi-permanent reduction of income for
certain segments of the population. In 2010 Romania abolished a number of special pension regimes
applicable to particular categories of retired public-sector employees, resulting in the case of five
applicants in a diminution of their pensions by approximately 70% (Frimu and Others v. Romania
(dec.), § 5).
421. Also in 2010 Greece reduced public-sector pensions and wages with retroactive effect by
percentages ranging from 12% to 30%, further reducing them later that year by an additional 8%,
and reduced holiday and Christmas allowances for higher-earning public-sector employees (Koufaki
and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), §§ 20 and 46).
422. In a case concerning the temporary reduction of judges’ salaries, the Court had regard to the
fact that the measures complained of formed part of a wide programme of austerity measures
affecting salaries throughout the public sector, that the reduction concerned an increase granted
two years earlier, and that ultimately the persons concerned had been compensated for this
reduction (Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), § 93).
423. In a case concerning taxation of severance pay at an overall rate of 52%, however, the Court
found that the means employed had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. This was
so despite the wide discretion that the State enjoyed in matters of taxation and even assuming that
the measure served the interest of the State budget at a time of economic hardship. The Court took
into account that the rate had considerably exceeded the rate applied to all other revenues; that the
applicant had suffered a substantial loss of income as a result of her unemployment; and the tax had
been directly deducted by the employer from the severance pay without any individualised
assessment of her situation and had been imposed on the income related to activities occurring
prior to the material tax year (N.K.M. v. Hungary, §§ 66-74).
424. In another case concerning imposition of taxes on high income, the Court found overall that
the decisions taken by the State had not gone beyond the limit of the discretion allowed to
authorities in questions of taxation and had not upset the balance between the general interest and
the protection of the companies’ individual rights. The Court noted that the steps taken by the State
had also been part of the country’s goal to meet obligations under European Union budget rules
(P. Plaisier B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), §§ 77-97).
425. Finally, in a case concerning the forcible participation by the applicants in the effort to reduce
the public debt by exchanging their bonds for other debt instruments of lesser value, the Court did
not find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It noted that the interference pursued a public-
interest aim of preserving economic stability and restructuring the national debt at a time of a
serious economic crisis. The Court held that the applicants had not suffered any special or excessive
burden, in view, particularly, of the States’ wide margin of appreciation in that sphere and of the
reduction of the commercial value of the bonds, which had already been affected by the reduced
solvency of the State, which would probably have been unable to honour its obligations under the
clauses included in the old bonds. The Court also considered that the collective action clauses and
the restructuring of the public debt had represented an appropriate and necessary means of
reducing the public debt and saving the State from bankruptcy, that investing in bonds was never
risk-free and that the applicants should have been aware of the vagaries of the financial market and
the risk of a possible drop in the value of their bonds (Mamatas and Others v. Greece, §§ 22 and 48-
51).

J. Law of the European Union

426. The case Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], §§ 155-156,
concerned an aircraft leased by the applicant company to a Yugoslav company which was
impounded in 1993 by the Irish authorities under a Community Regulation giving effect to UN
sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Court found that the protection of
fundamental rights by EC law could have been considered to be, and to have been at the relevant
time, “equivalent” to that of the Convention system (the so-called “Bosphorus presumption or the
principle of equivalent protection 7”). Consequently, a presumption arose that Ireland did not depart
from the requirements of the Convention when it implemented legal obligations flowing from its
membership of the EC. The Court took note of the nature of the interference, of the general interest
pursued by the impoundment and by the sanctions regime and of the ruling of the ECJ, a ruling with
which the Supreme Court was obliged to and did comply. It considered it clear that there was no
dysfunction of the mechanisms of control of the observance of Convention rights. Therefore, it could
not be said that the protection of Bosphorus Airways’ Convention rights was manifestly deficient. No
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found.
427. As to pecuniary claims, in the case of Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], §§ 104 and 109-111, which
concerned the enforcement in Latvia of a judgment delivered in 2004 in Cyprus with regard to the
repayment of a debt under Article 6 of the Convention and where no violation was found, the Court
has recognised that the mechanism provided for by European Union law for supervising observance
of fundamental rights, in so far as its full potential has been deployed, also affords protection
comparable to that for which the Convention provides (the second condition of the Bosphorus
presumption, the first condition being the absence of any margin of manoeuvre on the part of the
domestic authorities, as set out in Michaud v. France, §§ 114-116).
428. Furthermore, in Heracles S.A. General Cement Company v. Greece ((dec.) §§ 63-70), the Court
found that the domestic court’s judgment, further to the decision of the European Commission,
ordering the repayment of unlawfully acquired State aids, together with accrued interest over
14 years, was not disproportionate and declared the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
and Article 6 inadmissible.
429. Finally, in a recent case (O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland), a company
fishing for immature mussels (mussel seed) complained that the Irish Government had caused it
financial losses by the way it had complied with European Union environmental legislation. The
Government temporarily prohibited mussel seed fishing in 2008 in the harbour where the company
operated after the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”) found Ireland had failed to
fulfil its obligations under two EU environmental directives. The company thus had no mature
mussels to sell in 2010, causing a loss of profit. The Court observed that the protection of the
environment and compliance with the respondent State’s obligations under EU law were both
legitimate objectives. As a commercial operator the company should have been aware that the need
for the State to comply with EU rules was likely to impact its business.
430. In particular, the Court took the view that the Bosphorus presumption did not apply in the
circumstances of the present case as the respondent State was not wholly deprived of a margin of
manoeuvre in its duty to comply with the CJEU’s judgment and the secondary legislation
implementing the directive. The Court left open the question whether a judgment of the CJEU in
infringement proceedings could in other circumstances be regarded as leaving no margin of
manoeuvre (O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland, §§ 110-112).
431. Overall, the Court found that the company had not suffered a disproportionate burden due to
the Government’s actions and that Ireland had ensured a fair balance between the general interests
7. See the Guide on Article 1 (Obligation to respect human rights).

of the community and the protection of individual rights. There had therefore been no violation of
the company’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found.

List of cited cases
The case-law cited in this Guide refers to judgments or decisions delivered by the Court and to
decisions or reports of the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”).
Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to a judgment on the merits delivered by a Chamber
of the Court. The abbreviation “(dec.)” indicates that the citation is of a decision of the Court and
“[GC]” that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber.
Chamber judgments that are not final within the meaning of Article 44 of the Convention are marked
with an asterisk in the list below. Article 44 § 2 of the Convention provides: “The judgment of a
Chamber shall become final (a) when the parties declare that they will not request that the case be
referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) three months after the date of the judgment, if reference of
the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c) when the panel of the Grand
Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43”. In cases where a request for referral is
accepted by the Grand Chamber panel, the Chamber judgment does not become final and thus has
no legal effect; it is the subsequent Grand Chamber judgment that becomes final.
The hyperlinks to the cases cited in the electronic version of the Guide are directed to the HUDOC
database (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int) which provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand
Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory
opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), and of the Commission
(decisions and reports) and to the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.
The Court delivers its judgments and decisions in English and/or French, its two official languages.
HUDOC also contains translations of many important cases into more than thirty non-official
languages, and links to around one hundred online case-law collections produced by third parties. All
the language versions available for cited cases are accessible via the ‘Language versions’ tab in the
HUDOC database, a tab which can be found after you click on the case hyperlink.
—A—
Abukauskai v. Lithuania, no. 72065/17, 25 February 2020
Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 26878/07 32446/07, 12 December 2017
Ackermann and Fuhrmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 71477/01, 8 September 2013
AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108
Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330-A
Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A
Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, series A no. 32, p. 14
Aka v. Turkey, 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI
Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV
Akimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 19853/03, 27 September 2007
Akkus v. Turkey, 9 July 1997, Reports 1997-V
Aktiva DOO v. Serbia, no. 23079/11, 19 January 2021
Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, 28 July 2005
Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, 27 May 2014
Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], no. 5294/14, 7 July 2020
Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, 28 April 2005
Alfa Glass Anonymi Emboriki Etairia Yalopinakon v. Greece, no. 74515/13, 28 January 2021

Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, ECHR 2014
Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163
Allianz-Slovenska-Poistovna, A.S., and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 19276/05, 9 November 2010
Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96,
ECHR 2000-I
Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, 15 September 2009
Ambruosi v. Italy, no. 31227/96, 19 October 2000
Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, 26 February 2019
Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16225/08, 17 September 2015
Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009
Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, ECHR 2007-I
Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI
Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007
Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis v. Greece, no. 35332/05, 21 February 2008
Ansay and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 49908/99, 2 March 2006
Antonopoulou v. Greece (dec.), no. 46505/19, 19 January 2021
Apap Bologna v. Malta, no. 46931/12, 30 August 2016
Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009
Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002
Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII
Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012
Arsimikov and Arsemikov v. Russia, no. 41890/12, 9 June 2020
AsDAC v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 47384/07, 8 December 2020
Ashby Donald and Others v. France, no. 36769/08, 10 January 2013
Athanasiou and Others v. Greece, no. 2531/02, 9 February 2006
Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001
Aygun v. Turkey, no. 35658/06, 14 June 2011
Azas v. Greece, no. 50824/99, 19 September 2002
Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07 and 3 others, 24 June 2014
—B—
B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017
Bäck v. Finland, no. 37598/97, ECHR 2004-VIII
Bahia Nova S.A. v. Spain (dec.), no. 50924/99, 12 December 2000
Bakradze and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 1700/08 and 2 others, 8 January 2013
Baláž v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60243/00, 16 September 2003
Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, 8 October 2019
Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, ECHR 2005-XI
Barcza and Others v. Hungary, no. 50811/10, 11 October 2016
Bata v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43775/05, 24 June 2008
Baykin and Others v. Russia, no. 45720/17, 11 February 2020
Bečvář and Bečvářová v. the Czech Republic, no. 58358/00, 14 December 2004
Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 170520/10 and 2 others, 12 June 2018
Béla Németh v. Hungary, no. 73303/14, 17 December 2020
Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, 13 December 2016
Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, 1 February 2005
Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), nos. 40832/98 and 2 others, 27 April 1999
Belova v. Russia, no. 33955/08, 15 September 2020
Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, ECHR 2000-VI

Benet Czech, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 31555/05, 21 October 2010
Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia, no. 14717/04, 12 June 2014
Beshiri and Others v. Albania (dec.), nos. 29026/06 and 11 others, 17 March 2020
Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, ECHR 2000-I
Bienkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 33889/96, 9 September 1998
Bimer S.A. v. Moldova, no. 15084/03, 10 July 2007
Bistrović v. Croatia, no. 25774/05, 31 May 2007
Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, no. 30255/09, 28 January 2014
Blanco Callejas v. Spain (dec.), no. 64100/00, 18 June 2002
Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III
Blumberga v. Latvia no. 70930/01, 14 October 2008
Bock and Palade v. Romania, no. 21740/02, 15 February 2007
Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI
Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, 23 July 2009
Boyajyan v. Armenia, no. 38003/04, 22 March 2011
Bradshaw and Others v. Malta, no. 37121/15, 23 October 2018
Bramelid and Malmström v. Sweden, no. 8588/79 and 8589/79, Commission decision of 12 October
1982, DR 9, pp. 64 and 82
British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1995, Series A no. 331
Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2004-V
Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, 29 March 2010
Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999-VII
Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, 16 November 2004
Bucheň v. the Czech Republic, no. 36541/97, 26 November 2002
Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, 26 February 2008
Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, ECHR
2008 (extracts)
Budina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45603/05, 18 June 2009
Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation v. Italy, no. 38746/97, 3 July 2003
Buffalo SRL v. Italy, no. 44436/98, 27 February 2001
Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, 18 January 2007
“Bulves” AD v. Bulgaria, no. 3991/03, 22 January 2009
Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/09, 19 January 2006
Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, ECHR 2008
Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III
Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009
Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI
Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, 24 May 2005
—C—
C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII
Cacciato v. Italy (dec.) no. 60633/16, 16 January 2018
Čakarević v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, 26 April 2018
Cacucci and Sabatelli v. Italy (dec.), no. 29797/09, 17 June 2014
Caligiuri and Others v. Italy, nos. 657/10 and 3 others, 9 September 2014
Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004
Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII
Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)
Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010
Casarin v. Italy,* no. 4893/13, 11 February 2021

Cauchi v. Malta,* no. 14013/19, 25 March 2021

CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001
Ceni v. Italy, no. 25376/06, 4 February 2014
Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012
Chabauty v. France [GC], no. 57412/08, 4 October 2012
Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I
Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, ECHR 1999-III
Chengelyan and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 47405/07, 21 April 2016
Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, ECHR 2015
Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Armenia (dec.), no. 73601/14,
29 September 2020
Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 4295/03, ECHR 2006-XV
Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, 14 May 2013
Çiftçiler Joint Stock Company and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 62323/09 and 64965/09, 24 November
2020
Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016
Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. and Cıngıllıoğlu v. Turkey, nos. 31833/06 and 37538/06, 21 July 2015
Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey and Cıngıllıoğlu v. Turkey (just satisfaction), nos. 31833/06 and
37538/06, 28 January 2020
Company S. and T. v. Sweden, no. 11189/84, Commission decision of 11 December 1986, DR 50,
p. 138
Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004
Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, 3 April 2007
Cooperativa La Laurentina v. Italy, no. 23529/94, 2 August 2001
Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts)
Croatian Chamber of Economy v. Serbia (dec.), no. 819/08, 25 April 2017
Cvijetić v. Croatia, no. 71549/01, 26 February 2004
Czajkowska and Others v. Poland, no. 16651/05, 13 July 2010
—D—
Da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 62235/12 and 57725/12,
8 October 2013
Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015
Dabić v. Croatia,* no. 49001/14, 18 March 2021
Dabić v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 59995/00, 3 October 2001
Damayev v. Russia, no. 36150/04, 29 May 2012
Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007
Davydov v. Russia, no. 18967/07, 30 October 2014
De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870/04, 24 September 2013
Debelianovi v. Bulgaria, no. 61951/00, 29 March 2007
Denev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 12570/86, 18 January 1989
Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, 25 September 2018
Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, 1 April 2010
Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, ECHR 2010
Des Fours Walderode v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40057/98, ECHR 2004–V
Di Marco v. Italy, no. 32521/05, 26 April 2011
Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, 24 October 2017
Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, nos. 48059/06 and 2708/09, 10 May 2011
Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, no. 12655/09, 3 March 2015
Dobrowolski and Others v. Poland, nos. 45651/11 and 10 others, 13 March 2018

Doğan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803/02 and 14 others, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts)
Ðokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010
Dolneanu v. Moldova, no. 17211/03, 13 November 2007
Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V
Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII
Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, 6 October 2005
Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)
Družstevni Záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, 31 July 2008
Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, 12 January 2014
—E—
East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine, no. 19336/04, 23 January 2014
Edoardo Palumbo v. Italy, no. 15919/89, 30 November 2000
Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, 24 October 2006
Efstathiou and Michailidis & Co. Motel Amerika v. Greece, no. 55794/00, ECHR 2003-IX
Elif Kizil v. Turkey, no. 4601/06, 3 March 2020
Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005
Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004
—F—
Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, 5 September 2017
Fabris c. France [GC], no. 16574/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts)
Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, 3 June 2014
Fedulov v. Russia, no. 53068/08, 8 October 2019
Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank, no. 42758/05, 21 December 2017
Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı v. Turkey, no. 34478/97, 9 January 2007
Ferretti v. Italy, no. 25083/94, Commission decision of 26 February 1997
Flamenbaum and Others c. France, nos. 3675/04 and 23264/04, 13 December 2012
Floroiu v. Romania (dec.), no. 15303/10, 12 March 2013
Fomenko and Others (dec.), no. 42140/05 and 4 Others, 24 September 2019
Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, ECHR 2000-XII
Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25701/94, 28 November
2002
Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic, no. 38238/04, 9 October 2008
Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192
Freitag v. Germany, no. 71440/01, 19 July 2007
Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta, no. 2226/10, 22 November 2011
Frimu and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 45312/11 and 4 others, 7 February 2012
Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005
—G—
G. v. Austria, no. 10094/82, Commission decision of 14 May 1984, DR 38
G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (merits) [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, 28 June 2018
G.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 21156/93, 26 October 2000
Gaćeša v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008
Galakvoščius v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 11398/18, 7 July 2020

Galtieri v. Italy (dec.), no. 72864/01, 24 January 2006

Gashi v. Croatia, no. 32457/05, 13 December 2007
Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, Series A no. 306-B
Gavrilova and Others v. Russia,* no. 2625/17, 16 March 2021
Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos. 45526/99 and 20 others, ECHR 2002-VI (extracts)
Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV
Geerings v. Netherlands, no. 30810/03, 1 March 2007
Gellérthegyi and Others v. Hungary (dec.) nos. 78135/13 429/14, 6 March 2018
Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC] (merits), no. 38263/08, 21 January 2021
Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014
Giavi v. Greece, no. 25816/09, 3 October 2013
Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109
Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts)
Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011
Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, 11 October 2007
Glod v. Romania, no. 41134/98, 16 September 2003
Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015
Goretzky v. Germany (dec.), no. 52447/99, 6 April 2000
Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, ECHR 2004-III
Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII
Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, 23 September 2008
Greek Federation of Customs Officers, Gialouris and Others v. Greece, no. 24581/94, Commission
decision of 6 April 1995, DR 81-B, p. 123
Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004
Grobelny v. Poland, no. 60477/12, 5 March 2020
Grozdanić and Gršković-Grozdanić v. Croatia, no. 43326/13, 28 January 2021
Grozeva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 52788/99, 3 November 2005
Grudić v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, 17 April 2012
Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, 22 March 2016
Gubiyev v. Russia, no. 29309/03, 19 July 2011
Guiso and Consiglio v. Italy (dec.), no. 50821/06, 16 January 2018
Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009
Gustafsson v. Sweden [GC], judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 658
—H—
H.F. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003
Hakan Arı v. Turkey, no. 13331/07, 11 January 2011
Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24
Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, ECHR 2003-VIII
Haupt v. Austria (dec.), no. 55537/10, 2 May 2017
Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A
Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, 26 June 2012
Honecker and Others v. Germany (dec.), nos. 53991/00 and 54999/00, ECHR 2001-XII
Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II
Hunguest Zrt v. Hungary, no. 66209/10, 30 August 2016
Hüseyin Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24508/09, 1 October 2013
Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, no. 35014/97, 22 February 2005

—I—
Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I
Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, ECHR 1999-II
Igarienė and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, 21 July 2009
Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 5734/08 and 28 others, 17 April 2012
Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, ECHR 1999-V
International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, 2 June
2016
Interoliva ABEE v. Greece, no. 58642/00, 10 July 2003
Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25
Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, 6 November 2008
Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006
Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, 21 April 2016
Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, 26 July 2011
—J—
J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. the United Kingdom, no. 44302/02, 15 November 2005
J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, ECHR
2007-III
J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, 24 October 2019
J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V
J.S. and A.S. v. Poland, no. 40732/98, 24 May 2005
Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99 and 2 others, ECHR 2005-VI
Jahn and Thurm v. Germany (dec.), no. 46720/99, 25 April 2002
James and Others v. United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98
Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X
Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, 4 March 2003
Jasinskij and Others v. Lithuania, no. 38985/97, Commission decision of 9 September 1998
Jasiūniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, 6 March 2003
Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, ECHR 2006-XII
Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, ECHR 2002-IV
Jurčić v. Croatia,* no. 54711/15, 4 February 2021
—K—
Kamoy Radyo Televizyon Yayincilik ve Organizasyon A.S. v. Turkey, no. 19965/06, 16 April 2019
Kanevska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 73944/11, 17 November 2020
Karachalios v. Greece (dec.), no. 67810/14, 24 January 2017
Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey,* nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, 16 March 2021
Karapetyan v. Georgia, no. 61233/12, 15 October 2020
Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-IX
Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, 23 June 2020
Katikaridis and Others v. Greece, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V
Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, Series A no. 293-B
Katz v. Romania, no. 29739/03, 20 January 2009
Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290
Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, 12 January 2006
Keriman Tekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 22035/10, 15 November 2016

Kerimova and Others v. Russia, nos. 17170/04 and 5 others, 3 May 2011
Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006
KIPS DOO and Drekalović v. Montenegro, no. 28766/06, 26 June 2018
Khachatryan v. Armenia, no. 31761/04, 1 December 2009
Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013
Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, 19 June 2012
Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 42908/98 and 3 others, 9 June 2005
Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX
Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013
Klein v. Austria, no. 57028/00, 3 March 2011
Kleine Staarman v. the Netherlands, no. 10503/83, Commission decision of 16 May 1985, DR 42,
p. 162
Köksal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 30253/06, 26 November 2013
Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, 3 June 2014
Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary, no. 21623/13, 16 October 2018
Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)
Konstantin Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 35399/05, 27 October 2015
Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, ECHR 2004-IX
Kosmas and Others v. Greece, no. 20086/13, 29 June 2017, §§ 68-71
Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, no. 32141/04, 8 November 2007
Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, 3 April 2012
Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, ECHR 2003-X
Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos. 57665/12, 57657/12, 7 May 2013
Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), no. 54264/00, 15 February 2001
Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, 2 March 2010
Kozacioğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, 19 February 2009
Kozlovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50835/00, 23 November 2000
Krajnc v. Slovenia, no. 38775/14, 31 October 2017
Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002
Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004
Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C
Krstić v. Serbia, no. 45394/06, 10 December 2013, § 83
Kuchař and Štis v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 37527/97, 21 October 1998
Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, 3 November 2005
Kuna v. Germany (dec.), no. 52449/99, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)
Kunić v. Croatia, no. 22344/02, 11 January 2007
Kurban v. Turkey, no. 75414/10, 24 November 2020
Kurşun v. Turkey, no. 22677/10, 30 October 2018
Kutlu and Others v. Turkey, no. 51861/11, 13 December 2016, § 58
Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, 15 October 2019
Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts)
—L—
Łącz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009
Lachikhina v. Russia, no. 38783/07, 10 October 2017
Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06 and 3 others, 13 December 2011
Larioshina v. Russia (dec.), no. 56869/00, 23 April 2002
Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I
Lavrechov v. the Czech Republic, no. 57404/08, ECHR 2013
Lederer v. Germany (dec.), no. 6213/03, ECHR 2006-VI

Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, 11 December 2018

Lelas v. Croatia, no. 55555/08, 20 May 2010
Lenskaya v. Russia, no. 28730/03, 29 January 2009
Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001-X
Lenzing AG v. the United Kingdom, no. 38817/97, Commission decision of 9 September 1998
Lessing and Reichelt v. Germany (dec.) nos. 49646/10 and 3365/11, 16 October 2012
Levänen and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 34600/03, 11 April 2006
Liamberi and Others v. Greece, no. 18312/12, 8 October 2020
Likvidējamā p/s Selga and Vasiļevska v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 17126/02 and 24991/02, 1 October 2013
Lindheim and Others v. Norway, nos. 13221/08 and 2139/10, 12 June 2012
Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, 9 October 2014
Lisnyy and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), nos. 5355/14 and 2 others, 5 July 2016
Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102
Lizanets v. Ukraine, no. 6725/03, 31 May 2007
Ljaskaj v. Croatia, no. 58630/11, 20 December 2016
Ljubljanska banka d.d. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29003/07, 12 May 2015
Lo Tufo v. Italy, no. 64663/01, ECHR 2005-III
Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, 26 January 2006
Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX
—M—
M.A. and 34 Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 27793/95, June 2003
Machard v. France, no. 42928/02, 25 April 2006
Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09 and 4 others, 31 May 2011
Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012
Maharramov v. Azerbaijan, no. 5046/07, 30 March 2017
Maioli v. Italy, no. 18290/02, 12 July 2011
Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, ECHR 2001-II
Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII
Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012
Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)
Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos. 71916/01 and 2 others, ECHR 2005-V
Mamatas and Others v. Greece, nos. 63066/14 and 2 others, 21 July 2016
Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos. 604/07 and 3 others, 31 July 2012
Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31
Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06, 12 October 2010
Maria Mihalache v. Romania, no. 68851/16, 30 June 2020
Marija Božić v. Croatia, no. 50636/09, 24 April 2014
Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, 18 December 2007
Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, 11 June 2020
Marshall and Others v. Malta, no. 79177/16, 11 February 2020
Matheis v. Germany (dec.), no. 73711/01, 1 February 2005
Matheus v. France, no. 62740/00, 31 March 2005
Matos e Silva, Lda., and Others v. Portugal , 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1996-IV
Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, ECHR 2005-IX
Mauriello v. Italy (dec.), no. 14862/07, 13 September 2016
Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, ECHR 2000-II
McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, ECHR 2008
Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, ECHR 2008

Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169

Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX
Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, 17 June 2008
Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, 27 May 2004
Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 34129/03, 4 March 2014
Milhau v. France, no. 4944/11, 10 July 2014
Mindek v. Croatia, no. 6169/13, 30 August 2016
Mockienė v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 75916/13, 4 July 2017
Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, 19 December 2018
Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, 7 June 2005
Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, 15 September 2009
Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, no. 23060/08, 24 November 2020
Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission decision of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 3
Musa v. Austria, no. 40477/98, Commission decision of 10 September 1998
Musa Tarhan v. Turkey, no. 12055/17, 23 October 2018
Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 and 9 others, ECHR 2004-XII
—N—
N.K.M. v Hungary, no. 66529/11, 14 May 2013
National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building
Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII
National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria, no. 31678/17, 15 December 2020
Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), no. 40397/12, 19 February 2013
Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, ECHR 2002-VIII
Nešić v. Montenegro, no. 12131/18, 9 June 2020
Nechayeva v. Russia, no. 18921/15, 12 May 2020
Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B
Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)
—O—
O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland, no. 44460/16, 7 June 2018
OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011
O.N. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35221/97, 6 April 2000
Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07 and 3 others, 28 July 2009
Olbertz v. Germany (dec.), no. 37592/97, ECHR 1999-V
Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)
OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France, nos. 42219/98
and 54563/00, 27 May 2004
Omasta v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 40221/98, 10 December 2002
Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII
OOO Avrora Maloetazhnoe Stroitelstvo v. Russia, no. 5738/18, 7 April 2020
Orion-Břeclav, S.R.O. v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43783/98, 13 January 2004
Orlić v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, 21 June 2011
Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 16332/18, 1 October 2019
Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia, no. 71306/11, 11 October 2018
Ouzounoglou v. Greece, no. 32730/03, 24 November 2005
Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, ECHR 1999-VI

—P—
P. Plaisier B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos. 46184/16 and two others, 14 November 2017
Păduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)
Paeffgen GmbH v. Germany (dec.), nos. 25379/04 and 3 others, 18 September 2007
Pančenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999
Panchenko v. Ukraine, no. 10911/05, 10 December 2010
Panfile v. Romania (dec.), 13902/11, 20 March 2012
Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, ECHR 1999-II
Papachela and AMAZON S.A. v. Greece, no. 12929/18, 3 December 2020
Papamichalopoulos v. Greece, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B
Paplauskienė v. Lithuania, no. 31102/06, 14 October 2014
Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015
Parvanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 74787/01, 7 January 2010
Pasteli and Others v. Moldova, nos. 9898/02 and 3 others, 15 June 2004
Paulet v. the United Kingdom, no. 6219/08, 13 May 2014
Pendov v. Bulgaria, no. 44229/11, 3 March 2020
Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, 16 November 2010
Perre v. Italy (dec.), no. 32387/96, 21 September 1999
Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII
Philippou v. Cyprus, no. 71148/10, 14 June 2016
Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II
Pialopoulos and Others v. Greece, no. 37095/97, 15 February 2001
Pietrzak v. Poland, no. 38185/02, 8 January 2008
Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII
Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222
Pištorová v. the Czech Republic, no. 73578/01, 26 October 2004
Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, ECHR 2001-I
Plechanow v. Poland, no. 22279/04, 7 July 2009
Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, 18 January 2005
Popović and Others v. Serbia, nos. 26944/13 and 3 others, 30 June 2020
Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011
Preda and Others v. Romania, nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, 29 April 2014
Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332
Preußische Treuhand GmbH & Co. KG a.A. v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, 7 October 2008
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, ECHR 2001-VIII
Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)
Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, 19 November 2020
Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)
Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, 31 July 2008
Pyrantienė v. Lithuania, no. 45092/07, 12 November 2013
—R—
R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others 15 January 2008
R & L, s.r.o., and Others v. the Czech Republic, nos. 37926/05 and 4 others, 3 July 2014
R.Sz. v. Hungary, no. 41838/11, 2 July 2013
Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)
Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, 20 March 2018
Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania, nos. 68479/01 and 2 others, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)
Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A

Ramaer and Van Villingen v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 34880/12, 23 October 2012
Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, 28 April 2009
Reisner v. Turkey, no. 46815/09, 21 July 2015
Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, 10 May 2012
Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001
Romeva v. North Macedonia, no. 32141/10, 12 December 2019
Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland, no. 51728/99, 28 July 2005
Rosiński v. Poland, no. 17373/02, 17 July 2007
Rossitto v. Italy, no. 7977/03, 26 May 2009
Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, 25 July 2013
Rudzińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI
Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988,
Decisions and Reports (DR) 57
Rummi v. Estonia, no. 63362/09, 15 January 2015
Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, 18 July 2019
Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX
Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, 20 October 2011
—S—
S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 11716/85, 14 may 1986
S.A. Bio d’Ardennes v. Belgium, no. 44457/11, 12 November 2019
S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III
S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 27227/08, 15 December 2015
S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017
Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, 18 December 2008
Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, 27 May 2010
Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A
Saliba v. Malta, no. 4251/02, 8 November 2005
Saraç and Others v. Turkey,* no. 23189/09, 30 March 2021
Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, ECHR 2015
Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), nos. 66365/09 and 5 others, 15 October 2013
Scagliarini v. Italy (dec.), no. 56449/07, 3 March 2015
SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)
SC Editura Orizonturi SRL v. Romania, no. 15872/03, 13 May 2008
Schembri and Others v. Malta, no. 42583/06, 10 November 2009
Schirmer v. Poland, no. 68880/01, 21 September 2004
Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000
Scollo v. Italy, 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-C
Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V
Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II
Šeiko v. Lithuania, no. 82968/17, 11 February 2020
Semenov v. Russia,* no. 17254/15, 16 March 2021
Serbian Orthodox Church v. Croatia, no. 10149/13, 30 June 2020
Seregin and Others v. Russia,* nos. 31686/16 and 4 others, 16 March 2021
Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], no. 3976/05, 2 November 2010
Sherstyuk v. Ukraine (dec.); no. 37658/03, 18 September 2006
Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002
Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, 20 September 2011
Shlepkin v. Russia, no. 3046/03, 1 February 2007
Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, 20 October 2005

SIA AKKA/LAA v. Latvia, no. 562/05, 12 July 2016

Sildedzis v. Poland, no. 45214/99, 24 May 2005
Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012
Simonyan v. Armenia, no. 18275/08, 7 April 2016
Sirc v. Slovenia, no. 44580/98, 8 April 2008
Skibińscy v. Poland, no. 52589/99, 14 November 2006
Skórits v. Hungary, no. 58171/09, 16 September 2014
Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999
Skowroński v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001
Skrzyński v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007
Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)
Smiljanić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 481/04, 2 June 2006
Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 12633/87, 4 October 1990
Sorić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43447/98, 16 March 2000
Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, ECHR 2002-VII
Špaček, s.r.o., v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, 9 November 1999
Špoljar and Dječji Vrtić Pčelice v. Croatia (dec.), no. 68320/13, 22 September 2020
Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52
S.p.r.l. ANCA and Others v. Belgium, no. 10259/83, Commission decision of 10 December 1984,
Decisions and Reports 40, p. 170
Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, ECHR 2006-VI
Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014
Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X
Stefanetti and Others v Italy, nos. 21838/10 and 7 others, 15 April 2014
Stere and Others v. Romania, no. 25632/02, 23 February 2006
Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, 29 January 2015
Străin and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, ECHR 2005-VII
Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B
Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others,
29 July 2010
Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, 24 June 2003
Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia, nos. 14460/16 and 7 others, 27 February 2020
Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, ECHR 2011
Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 75909/01, 30 August 2007
Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy, no. 75909/01, 20 January 2009
Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, 26 June 2014
Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, 13 April 2006
Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, 3 November 2009
Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009
Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99, 20 April 2004
Süzer and Eksen Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey, no. 6334/05, 23 October 2012
Sypchenko v. Russia, no. 38368/04, 1 March 2007
—T—
Taşkaya v. Turkey, no. 14004/06, 13 February 2018
Tchokontio Happi v. France, no. 65829/12, 9 April 2015
Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, 30 June 2005
The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, pp. 34-35
Tkachenko v. Russia, no. 28046/05, 20 March 2018
Todorov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65850/01, 13 May 2008

Tokel v. Turkey, no. 23662/08, 9 February 2021

Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004
Toşcuţă and Others v. Romania, no. 36900/03, 25 November 2008
Trajkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV
Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159
Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, 24 March 2009
—U—
Udovičić v. Croatia, no. 27310/09, 24 April 2014
Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine, no. 22603/02, 22 November 2007
Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41680/13, 2 February 2021
Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v. Bulgaria, no. 3503/08, 13 October 2015
Urbárska Obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, 27 November 2007
Uzan and Others v. Turkey, no. 19620/05 and 3 others, 5 March 2019
—V—
Valle Pierimpiè Società Agricola S.P.A. v. Italy, no. 46154/11, 23 September 2014
Valentin v. Denmark, no. 26461/06, 26 March 2009
Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04 and 8 others, 25 October 2011
Van den Bouwhuijsen and Schuring v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44658/98, 16 December 2003
Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101
Van Offeren v. Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005
Varvara v. Italy, no. 17475/09, 29 October 2013
Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III
Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria, no. 14966/04, 31 May 2012
Vaskrsić v. Slovenia, no. 31371/12, 25 April 2017
Vassallo v. Malta, no. 57862/09, 11 October 2011
Vedernikova v. Russia, no. 25580/02, 12 July 2007
Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, 15 January 2015
Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015
Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98 and 8 others, 15 March 2007
Velosa Barreto v. Portugal, 21 November 1995, Series A no. 334
Veselá and Loyka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 54811/00, 13 December 2005
Vijatović v. Croatia, no. 50200/13, 16 February 2016
Vikentijevik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 50179/07, 6 February 2014
Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II
Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, 25 October 2012
Vitiello v. Italy, no. 77962/01, 23 March 2006
Vladimirov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 58043/10, 25 September 2018
Vladimirova v. Russia, no. 21863/05, 10 April 2018
Vodă and Bob v. Romania, no. 7976/02, 7 February 2008
Vrtar v. Croatia, no. 39380/13, 7 January 2016
Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, 10 January 2012
—W—
Wallishauser v. Austria (no. 2), no. 14497/06, 20 June 2013

Wasa Liv Ömsesidigt, Försäkringsbolaget Valands Pensionsstiftelse and a group of approximately

15,000 individuals v. Sweden, no. 13013/87, Commission decision of 14 December 1988,
DR 58, p.186
Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004
Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A
Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)
Werra Naturstein GmbH & Co Kg v. Germany, no. 32377/12, 19 January 2017
Wessels-Bergervoet v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 34462/97, 3 October 2000
Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, 8 December 2009
Wysowska v. Poland, no. 12792/13, 23 January 2018
—Y—
Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, 10 August 2006
Yaroslavtsev v. Russia, no. 42138/02, 2 December 2004
Yașar v. Romania, no. 64863/13, 26 November 2019
Yavaş and Others v. Turkey, no. 36366/06, 5 March 2019
Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, 8 April 2010
Yetiş and Others v. Turkey, no. 40349/05, 6 July 2010
Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV
Yuriy Lobanov v. Russia, no. 15578/03, 2 December 2010
Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009
—Z—
Z.A.N.T.E. – Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece, no. 14216/03, 6 December 2007
Zammit and Vassallo v. Malta, no. 43675/16, 28 May 2019
Zamoyski-Brisson v. Poland (dec.), no. 19875/13, 5 September 2017
Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C
Zastava It Turs v. Serbia (dec.), no. 24922/12, 9 April 2013
Zbaranskaya v. Ukraine, no. 43496/02, 11 October 2005
Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, 16 July 2009
Zeïbek v. Greece, no. 46368/06, 9 July 2009
Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura v. Ukraine, no. 846/16, 1075/16, 22 May 2018
Zhelyazkov v. Bulgaria, no. 11332/04, 9 October 2012
Zhidov and Others v. Russia, nos. 54490/10 and 3 others, 16 October 2018
Zhigalev v. Russia, no. 54891/00, 6 July 2006
Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 9 others, ECHR
1999-VII
Ziya Çevik v. Turkey, no. 19145/08, 21 June 2011
Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2), no. 66610/09, ECHR 2013 (extracts)
Zouboulidis v. Greece (no. 2), no. 36963/06, 25 June 2009
Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, 3 October 2013
Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, ECHR 2002-IX

Guide-Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR-April 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide-Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR-April 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide-Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR-April 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No.

Updated on 30 April 2021

European Court of Human Rights 2/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

II. General issues ........................................................................................ 7

European Court of Human Rights 3/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

III. Specific issues ..................................................................................... 55

List of cited cases ...................................................................................... 80

European Court of Human Rights 4/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 5/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 6/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

II. General issues

A. Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – “possessions”

European Court of Human Rights 7/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 8/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 9/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 10/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

c. Different types of “possessions” and other proprietary interests

i. Claims and judgment debts

ii. Company shares and other financial instruments

European Court of Human Rights 11/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 12/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 13/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

iii. Professional clientele

iv. Business licences

vi. Intellectual property

European Court of Human Rights 14/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

vii. Lease on property and housing rights

European Court of Human Rights 15/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

viii. Social security benefits/pensions

European Court of Human Rights 16/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 17/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

ix. Destruction of property in situations of international or internal armed conflict – the

European Court of Human Rights 18/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

B. Interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s

European Court of Human Rights 19/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 20/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 21/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 22/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 23/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 24/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 25/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 26/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

3. Public or general interest

European Court of Human Rights 27/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 28/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

4. Proportionality and related issues (fair balance, compensation, margin of

European Court of Human Rights 29/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 30/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 31/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

c. Substantive issues relevant for the fair balance test

European Court of Human Rights 32/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 33/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

d. Issues concerning the applicant

e. Compensation for the interference with property as an element of fair balance

European Court of Human Rights 34/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 35/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 36/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

C. Positive obligations on member States

European Court of Human Rights 37/94 Last update: 30.04.2021

European Court of Human Rights 38/94 Last update: 30.04.2021