The consequences of such enforcement
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:59 am
In determining whether this requirement has been met, the Court recognises that the State is entitled to a wide margin of appreciation both in the choice of means of enforcing orders and in determining the justification of in the light of the general interest - enforcement aimed at achieving the aim pursued by the law in question.
In areas such as housing, which play a central role in ensuring the well-being and economic policy of modern society, the Court will respect legislative decisions if they are in the general interest and are based on clearly stated reasonable grounds (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, nos. 10522/83; 11011/84; 11070/84, 19 December 1989, § 48, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], 29 April 1999, nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75). Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC] judgment of 28 July 1999, application no. 22774/93, § 49.
Thus, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnrot v. Sweden, the applicants complained that a regulation of the Stockholm municipality, which allowed the local authorities to alienate any property at will practically without restrictions, violated their right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that although such alienation theoretically left the owners the right to use and dispose of special database their property, in practice their ability to do so was so limited that the application of Swedish law did in fact violate their right to the free possession of their property.
Having examined the case, the Court also emphasised its view that the Convention as a whole requires a balance to be struck between the interests of society and fundamental human rights, and noted that in cases of deprivation of property, restrictions on its use or other similar situations, justice requires that the persons affected be given the right to challenge government decisions on the deprivation of property, the imposition of controls on its use and that compensation be provided.
In areas such as housing, which play a central role in ensuring the well-being and economic policy of modern society, the Court will respect legislative decisions if they are in the general interest and are based on clearly stated reasonable grounds (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, nos. 10522/83; 11011/84; 11070/84, 19 December 1989, § 48, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], 29 April 1999, nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75). Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC] judgment of 28 July 1999, application no. 22774/93, § 49.
Thus, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnrot v. Sweden, the applicants complained that a regulation of the Stockholm municipality, which allowed the local authorities to alienate any property at will practically without restrictions, violated their right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that although such alienation theoretically left the owners the right to use and dispose of special database their property, in practice their ability to do so was so limited that the application of Swedish law did in fact violate their right to the free possession of their property.
Having examined the case, the Court also emphasised its view that the Convention as a whole requires a balance to be struck between the interests of society and fundamental human rights, and noted that in cases of deprivation of property, restrictions on its use or other similar situations, justice requires that the persons affected be given the right to challenge government decisions on the deprivation of property, the imposition of controls on its use and that compensation be provided.