Kopecky v Slovakia: ECHR 28 Sep 2004

(Grand Chamber) The court said of the practice of the Convention institutions under A1 P1: ‘An applicant can allege a violation of article 1 of Protocol 1 only in so far as the impugned decisions related to his ‘possessions’ within the meaning of this provision. ‘Possessions’ can be either ‘existing possessions’ or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a ‘legitimate expectation’ of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right. By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a ‘possession’ within the meaning of article 1 of Protocol 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition.’
Wildhaber P
[2004] ECHR 446, (2005) 41 EHRR 43, 44912/98
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1
Human Rights
See AlsoKopecky v Slovakia ECHR 7-Jan-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award . .

Cited by:
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedBrewster, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 8-Feb-2017
Survivor of unmarried partner entitled to pension
The claimant appealed against the rejection of her claim to the survivor’s pension after the death of her longstanding partner, even though they had not been married. The rules said that she had to have been nominated by her partner, but he had not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.447634