Ltd and ▇ Sample Clauses

Ltd and ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇ (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom 44302/02 [2007] ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0830JUD004430202, paragraph 61. the slots they hold renewed in the next equivalent season if they operate them according to the 80% threshold. Therefore, historic slots could be interpreted by airlines as “possessions” in the sense of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR.1031 Law firm ▇▇▇▇▇ & Co, which undertook the legal analysis underpinning the ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2011) study, deems it unlikely that a challenge on such grounds would succeed, provided sufficient notice were given of the intention to limit or end grandfather rights.1032 Furthermore, as described at the start of this section, a property claim may only be regarded as a possession when it is sufficiently established to be enforceable. In other words, a legal person who complains of a violation of his or her right to property laid down in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR must first of all show that such a right existed, as has also been confirmed by the court on various occasions.1033 A conditional claim which lapses following the non-fulfillment of the condition cannot be considered a possession.1034 As historic slots were always allocated conditionally to airlines,1035 it follows that they cannot be considered possessions and, as such, they do not qualify to get protection from Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Hence, an airline would also not be entitled to compensation by the State for any damage incurred. Even if historic slots were seen as possessions instead of as conditional claims, it is questionable whether historic slots are enforceable against third parties and whether the non- intervention criterion can be upheld. Pursuant to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, States have a wide power to interfere with the right to property if such an intervention pursues the general or public interest.1036 Moreover, three conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively before a State may interfere: interference with the right to property shall be allowed only if (1) it is prescribed by law, (2) it is in the public interest, and (3) it is necessary in a democratic society. The first condition shows that it is imperative that the requirement of legality is satisfied. After all, the principle of legal certainty is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society.1037 Since domestic authorities have a better knowledge of their society and its needs, the Court is of the opinion ...