Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 23178/13

The striking of a fair balance depends on many factors (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 54, Series A no. 108).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 23178/13

An interference with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 will be disproportionate where the property-owner concerned has had to bear "an individual and excessive burden", such that "the fair balance which should be struck between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest" is upset (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 73, Series A no. 52 and Paulet v. the United Kingdom, no. 6219/08, § 65, 13 May 2014).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 23178/13

Although the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the Court must consider whether the proceedings as a whole afforded the applicant a reasonable opportunity for putting his case to the competent authorities with a view to enabling them to establish a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake (see Paulet, cited above, § 65; AGOSI, cited above, § 55; and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 55, ECHR 2002-IV).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 23178/13

Relying on Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII, the Government argued that, given the importance of the aims pursued by confiscation legislation, a confiscation order was a control on property that the national authorities were entitled to enforce consistently with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Moreover, in Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015 the Court had stated that the national authorities were to be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in deciding on the appropriate means of controlling the use of property through confiscation.