Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 31037/06

Any expectation that the applicant might have had for the renewal of the transportation licence on the basis of the initial favourable interpretation of the relevant laws by the Batman Municipality was lost when that interpretation was rejected by the national courts as incorrect (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 50, ECHR 2004-IX; and Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I).

Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 31037/06

The Court reiterates at the outset that the withdrawal of valid permits to run a business may in certain circumstances constitute an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as it is considered as a measure of control of the use of property, which falls to be examined under the second paragraph of this provision (see, for instance, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 55, Series A no. 159 ; and Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd v. Poland, no. 51728/99, § 49, 28 July 2005).

Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 31037/06

In these circumstances, considering that the transportation licence had no legal validity ab initio, its withdrawal by a final court order in 2005 cannot be considered to amount to an infringement of the applicant's property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.1, which only protects a person's existing possessions or legitimate expectations to obtain such possessions (J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 61, ECHR 2007-III).