From these cases it transpires that the Court has been prepared to find an interference with the enjoyment of possessions where the impugned measures have directly and adversely affected the applicants' ownership of their shares or their freedom to dispose of their shares (see Offerhaus and Offerhaus v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35730/97, 16 January 2001; Soyuer and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 49445/07, 21 June 2011; Melo Tadeu v. Portugal, no. 27785/10, § 75, 23 October 2014; Reisner, cited above, § 45; and Zülfikari, § 47, cited above), or obliged the applicant to sell his shares (see Kind v. Germany, no. 44324/98, Commission decision of 30 March 2000), or where the measures had decreased their power to influence the company vis-à-vis other shareholders (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 92, 25 July 2002), to act as the company's manager (see Erbs, cited above) or to vote (see Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others, § 80, cited above).

See Offerhaus and Offerhaus v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35730/97, 16 January 2001.

La Cour a considéré dans ce cas que les requérants pouvaient se prétendre victimes d'une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 en leur qualité d'actionnaires (Offerhaus et Offerhaus c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 35730/97, 16 janvier 2001).

En deuxième lieu, il s'agissait d'affaires où les mesures litigieuses visaient directement les droits inhérents à une action ou une part sociale, telle l'annulation des actions ou l'obligation de les échanger à un prix défavorable (Olczak c. Pologne (déc.), no 30417/96, CEDH 2002-X, et Offerhaus c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 35730/97, 16 janvier 2001).