- 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 BatesEd BatesAssociate Professor, School of Law, University of Leicester
- and Carla BuckleyCarla BuckleyResearch Fellow, Human Rights Law Centre, University of Nottingham
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 provides for two types of interference: deprivation of property is justified only where it is in the public interest and in accordance with national law and the general principles of international law; control of use of property is justified only where it accords with national law and is in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions. Where interference doesn’t fall into one of these types 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.