NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

derived from the meaning of the word ‘biens’ in the French version of the text of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Under Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, 1145 when a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages and when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning, the meaning that best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, should be used. In French legal terminology, the term ‘biens’ relates to all patrimonial rights. Accordingly, apart from ownership of movable and immovable property, intellectual property rights, 1146 arbitral awards 1147 and entitlements to rent 1148 arising from a contract also fall within the meaning of ‘possessions’ under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. On the other hand, property rights constituting possessions may cease to do so, when it is impossible to exercise them. This mainly involved cases concerning the restoration of property rights after the Second World War or upon the fall of the former communist governments 1149 in Central and Eastern Europe. 1150 A more detailed explanation of the concept of possessions under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 will be given in examples from the case-law of the Court. Three rules concerning the property rights were set forth, inter alia , in the case of Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus : “75. The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees the right to the protection of property, contains 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 deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule , stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. … The three rules are not, however, ‘distinct’ in the sense of being unconnected. The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule” (see, as a recent authority with further references, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 52, ECHR 2007– …). 76. In order to be compatible with the general rule set forth in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1, an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions 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 (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 107, ECHR 2000-I). 1145 Treaty Series , vol. 1155, p. 331. 1146 Anheuser-Busch Inc. [GC] , cited above, § 46. 1147 ANNACKER, C. Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Tool to ‘Enforce’ Arbitral Awards? The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review 2015, Section 2. URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 1148 R & L, s.r.o. and Others v. the Czech Republic , nos. 37926/05, 25784/09, 36002/09, 44410/09 and 65546/09, § 127, 3 July 2014. 1149 Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII. 1150 HARRIS, 2009, cited above, p. 660.

216