EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

CHAPTER VII. RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY AND THE FIRST PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was adopted on 20 March 1952 in Paris. It entered into force on 18 May 1954. Monaco and Switzerland are not parties to this treaty. Some of the COE member states, for example Estonia and Latvia, have made the reservations in accordance with Article 64 of the Convention. They declared, for instance, that the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol shall not apply to the laws on property reform which regulate the restoration or compensation of property nationalised, confiscated, requisitioned, collectivised or otherwise unlawfully expropriated during the period of Soviet annexation.

MAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention Protection of 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. General principles of the Court Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 comprises three 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 the deprivation of property and subjects it to conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be read in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999‑V; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 134, ECHR 2004‑V; and Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 93, 25 October 2012). The concept of “possessions” under Article 1 has an autonomous meaning which is independent from the formal classification in domestic law and is not limited to the ownership of physical goods. It also includes certain other rights and interest constituting assets that can be regarded as “property rights” and “possessions” for the purpose of this article. In the case of non-physical assets, the Court takes into consideration, in particular, whether the position in question gave rise to financial rights and interests, having thus economic value, such as trademarks, copyrights and patents ( Anheuser-Bush, Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, 11 January 2007, §§ 72, 76 and 78), or licences to use property in a particular way ( Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden , no. 10873/84, 7 July 1989, § 53).

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

81