Chapter 23 Multiple choice questions

1. Which one of the following is unlikely to count as a 'possession' for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol?

A settled legal right to take court action.

A refusal by a national patent registrar to accept an application for a patent.

A legal entitlement to a non-contributory welfare benefit.

An application for a licence to sell alcohol by a pub that has, for many years previously, applied for and been granted similar licences.

2. The third sentence of Article 1 leaves States free to control, by law, the use people make of their property; such control need only be in accordance with the general interest, which it is easy for a State to prove.

True

False

3. Which one of the following statements best expresses the freedoms that States have under the Convention to deprive people of their property or control its use?

There are no restrictions on what purposes States, through their governments, may pursue by interfering with property rights.

Article 1 only permits deprivations of property in the 'public interest' and interferences in the 'general interest', and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) must decide for itself whether any interference with property is for one of these purposes.

Article 1 only permits deprivations of property in the 'public interest' and interferences in the 'general interest'. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) accepts that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation over what is or is not in the public or general interest of their society.

Interferences with property under Article 1 can only be to serve a specific range of purposes that have been identified by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), including development control and the prevention or punishment of crime.

4. Match the UK case decided under the HRA 1998 with the general principle and issue concerning interference with possession.

In applying its policies on the confiscation of goods, Customs and Excise had to act proportionately. This included being properly sensitive to individual factors such as whether a person was smuggling professionally or just for her or his own personal use.

The government's scheme to deter illegal immigration into the UK by lorry placed burdens and restrictions on transport companies that were disproportionate.

It was a disproportionate interference with the possessions of small electricity producing companies for the government to issue a consultation document proposing to reduce the tariff to be paid. As a consequence investments made by the producers lost significant value.

A number of UK statutes allow the state to take property from individuals on the grounds that it is the proceeds of crime. Whether these are a deprivation of property or a restriction of use, they are likely to be proportionate and justified as in the public or general interest.

Quiz Content