Control of the Use of Property in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the concept of expropriation of property in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, such concepts as control over the use of property and confiscation of property are considered.
 It was found that the provision of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights consists of three separate prescriptions, in particular: the rule is of a general nature and establishes the principle of unhindered use of property; refers to deprivation of property and conditions it under certain conditions; it is recognized that the Contracting States have the right, inter alia, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by applying such laws as they consider necessary for this purpose.
 A state party to the Convention has the right to enact such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with general interests. That is, it provides an opportunity to independently judge the need for such a law. At the same time, a minimum legal framework, including an appropriate forum, must be maintained to enable those who claim that their rights have been violated to effectively assert and enforce their rights.
 Any state interference with such a right must be lawful and a fair balance between private and public interests must be observed. Achieving a fair balance means that in every case involving an alleged violation of this norm, it must be established that the person does not bear an unreasonable and excessive burden because of such actions or inaction of the state. Legitimacy means that the state's intervention in property rights must be carried out by ensuring compliance with laws that must be sufficiently accessible, precise and predictable in their application.
 We have come to the conclusion that any interference by the state authorities in the right to peaceful possession of one's property can be justified only if it is not only legal (taking into account the instability, in particular, of domestic laws with their negative temporal property) but also corresponds to public interests by means reasonably proportionate to the goal to be achieved.