Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLang, Richarden_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-11T10:29:45Z
dc.date.available2012-05-11T10:29:45Z
dc.date.issued2008-12-31
dc.identifier.citationLang, R. (2008) 'Unlocking the First Protocol: Protection of property and the European Court of Human Rights', Human Rights Law Journal 29, 205en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0174-4704
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/223219
dc.description.abstractThis output makes an important contribution to an area where there is surprisingly little existing literature. Via a thorough analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (the relevant provision), the piece offers a highly original take on the Court’s case-law on this subject, ending with an algorithm that, it is hoped, will aid practitioners embarking on a case involving the right to property. However, other academics should also find it of interest. With the Yukos case – reputedly the largest expropriation case in legal history - having had its first hearing only a few months ago, the topic will only grow in importance as time goes on. The author also points out some of the differences between Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and the right to property provision in the new EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which only became legally binding in December 2009. As case-law based on the Charter starts to emerge from the Luxembourg Court (on terrorist asset-freezing, for example), again this topic is likely to gain prominence, with this output hopefully acting as a point of departure for future works by other scholars.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherN. P. Engel, Kehl am Rheinen_GB
dc.subjectright to propertyen_GB
dc.subjectEuropean Court of Human Rightsen_GB
dc.subjectproperty lawen_GB
dc.subjecthuman rightsen_GB
dc.titleUnlocking the first protocol: protection of property and the European Court of Human Rightsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Bedfordshireen_GB
dc.identifier.journalHuman Rights Law Journalen_GB
html.description.abstractThis output makes an important contribution to an area where there is surprisingly little existing literature. Via a thorough analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (the relevant provision), the piece offers a highly original take on the Court’s case-law on this subject, ending with an algorithm that, it is hoped, will aid practitioners embarking on a case involving the right to property. However, other academics should also find it of interest. With the Yukos case – reputedly the largest expropriation case in legal history - having had its first hearing only a few months ago, the topic will only grow in importance as time goes on. The author also points out some of the differences between Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and the right to property provision in the new EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which only became legally binding in December 2009. As case-law based on the Charter starts to emerge from the Luxembourg Court (on terrorist asset-freezing, for example), again this topic is likely to gain prominence, with this output hopefully acting as a point of departure for future works by other scholars.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Centre for Research in Law (CRiL)
    CRiL developing research activities in the areas of Law and Terrorism, Investment Treaty Arbitration, International Commercial Arbitration and Aviation Law.
  • Law
  • Law

Show simple item record