Show Summary Details
Harris, O'Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights

Harris, O'Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (5th edn)

David Harris, Michael O'Boyle, Ed Bates, and Carla M. Buckley
Page of

Printed from Oxford Law Trove. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 22 June 2024

p. 86120. Article 1, First Protocol: The Right to Propertylocked

p. 86120. Article 1, First Protocol: The Right to Propertylocked

  • David Harris, David HarrisEmeritus Professor in Residence, and Co-Director, Human Rights Law Centre, University of Nottingham
  • Michael O’boyle, Michael O’boyleDeputy Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (2006–2015)
  • Ed Bates, Ed BatesAssociate Professor, School of Law, University of Leicester
  • Carla M. Buckley, Carla M. BuckleyInternational Human Rights Lawyer
  • KreŠimir Kamber, KreŠimir KamberRegistry Lawyer, European Court of Human Rights
  • ZoË Bryanston-Cross, ZoË Bryanston-CrossRegistry Lawyer, European Court of Human Rights
  • Peter CumperPeter CumperProfessor of Law, University of Leicester
  •  and Heather GreenHeather GreenIndependent Researcher

Abstract

This chapter discusses Article 1 of the First Protocol, which guarantees the right to property. Recognition of a pecuniary right in national law or practice will give rise to a ‘possession’ under the Convention. Article 1 imposes upon states positive obligations to protect property, and negative obligations not to interfere with the right to property without justification. It permits two types of interference: (i) deprivation of property where it is in the public interest and in accordance with national law and the general principles of international law; and (ii) control of use of property where it accords with national law and is in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions. Where interference does not fall within one of these categories, it is regulated under the first sentence of Article 1. The standard in all cases requires a ‘fair balance’ be struck between the public interest and the burden of the interference on the person.

You do not currently have access to this chapter

Sign in

Please sign in to access the full content.

Subscribe

Access to the full content requires a subscription