Expropriation notices, which were eventually withdrawn, constituted neither deprivation of property nor control of use, but ‘The fact that the permits fell within the ambit of neither of the second sentence of the first paragraph nor of the second paragraph does not mean that the interference with the [right guaranteed by Article 1P1] violated the rule contained in the first sentence of the first paragraph.’ and ‘For the purposes of the latter provision, the court must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The search for the balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention and is also reflected in the structure of Article 1.’
 ECHR 28, 14556/89, (1993) 16 EHRR 440
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
See Also – Papamichalopoulos and Others v Greece ECHR 31-Oct-1995
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Just satisfaction – restitution of land; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings; . .
Cited – Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.165265