The concept of ‘possessions’ in Art. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law, and requires the examination of the question whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1. Delay by one party is an important factor in striking the balance.
33202/96,  ECHR 1,  ECHR 1,  ECHR 466
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Cited – Gita Ram v Baskinder Ram,Solinder Ram, Monder Ram and Maurice William Russell CA 5-Nov-2004
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced.
See Also – Beyeler v Italy ECHR 28-May-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.165804