Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The multilevel protection of the right of property in Europe

  • Article
  • Published:
China-EU Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the European legal area, the safeguard of the right to property takes place at the interface between international law, EU law and each national legal system. Each of these laws has its own scope of application and level of protection, which partially differs from those of the others, as well as its own supreme jurisdiction which seeks for itself the final word in the field of human rights law. This complex background raises questions concerning the law applicable to interferences in the relevant rights, as well as the terms of the interaction among legal orders and their respective supreme courts, in a context of dialogue and potential conflict that requires consistent articulation in a system in the interest of legal certainty of the right’s holders. This paper provides an overview of the current constitutional system of protection of the right to property in Europe against interferences caused in its sphere by public authorities, both national (and subnational) or European. To that end, this article considers both the legal pluralism perspective along with the need for a systematic scheme of relations between legal orders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Gambaro 2011, p. 205 ff.

  2. In this paper, the expressions “right of property” and “right to property” are used as synonyms, in accordance with the indifferent use given to them by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

  3. For an overview of the main understandings of the right of property, see Alexander and Peñalver 2013.

  4. At the end of 2013, of the 47 States which are members of the Council of Europe and that have ratified the ECHR, only two (Monaco and Switzerland) had not ratified the First Protocol.

  5. Marckx v. Belgium [1979] ECtHR, para. 63; Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 106; Mellacher and Others v. Austria [1989] ECtHR, para. 42.

  6. See The Holy Monasteries v. Greece [1994] ECtHR, para. 49.

  7. Marckx v. Belgium [1979] ECtHR, para. 63; Bijelic v. Montenegro and Serbia [2009] ECtHR, para. 80.

  8. See Van Drooghenbroeck 2000/2001, p. 437 ff., Allen 2003, p. 57 ff., Riza Çoban 2003, p. 144 ff., Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo 2012, p. 36 ff.

  9. See among others Gasus Dosier-und Fördertechnik GmbH v. The Netherlands [1995] ECtHR, para. 53; Beyeler v. Italy [2000] ECtHR, para. 100.

  10. Matos e Silva, Lda. and Others v. Portugal [1996] ECtHR, para. 75.

  11. Among others, see Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 106, and Olczak v. Poland [2002] ECtHR, para. 71.

  12. Mellacher and Others v. Austria [1989] ECtHR, para. 43.

  13. See Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [2007], ECtHR, para. 72.

  14. Zainescu v. Romania [2008] ECtHR 2008, para. 22.

  15. Van Marle and Others v. The Netherlands [1986] ECtHR, para. 41.

  16. Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v. Sweden [1989] ECtHR, para. 53.

  17. Marckx v. Belgium [1979] ECtHR, para. 50.

  18. Almeida Garrett Mascarenhas Falçao and Others v. Portugal [2000] ECtHR, para. 47.

  19. Draon v. France [2005] ECtHR, para. 65.

  20. See Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreatis v. Greece [1994] ECtHR, para. 61.

  21. Draon v. France [2005] ECtHR, para. 65 ff.

  22. See Pressos Compania Naviera S. A. and Others v. Belgium [1995] ECtHR, para. 31.

  23. Fredin v. Sweden [1991] ECtHR, para. 40; Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland [1991] ECtHR, para. 51.

  24. Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden [1982] ECtHR, para. 61.

  25. James and others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 37.

  26. Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden [1982] ECtHR, para. 61.

  27. Öneryildiz v. Turkey [2002] ECtHR, para. 145.

  28. Ibid, para. 145; Budayeva and Others v. Russia [2008] ECtHR, para. 172.

  29. On the positive obligations derived by the ECtHR from Article P1-1, see Praduroux 2013, p. 63 ff., Riza Çoban 2003, p. 164 ff..

  30. Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine [2002] ECtHR, para. 96; Zehentner v. Austria [2009] ECtHR, para. 73 and 75.

  31. Iatridis v. Greece [1999] ECtHR, para. 58.

  32. Among others, see Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 121–122.

  33. Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden [1982] ECtHR, para. 69.

  34. On this doble use of the margin of appreciation and its broad scope under Article P1-1, see Winisdoerffer 1998, p. 18 ff., Arai-Takahashi 2002, p. 149 ff.

  35. See Handyside v. The United Kingdom [1976] ECtHR, para. 62; Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria [1987] ECtHR, para. 74.

  36. Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden [1982] ECtHR, para. 63; Fredin v. Sweden [1991] ECtHR, para. 42.

  37. Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland [1991] ECtHR, para. 56.

  38. Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden [1982] ECtHR, para. 69; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy [2000] ECtHR, para. 62.

  39. Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 110.

  40. Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy [2000] ECtHR, para. 66.

  41. James and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 46; Jahn and Others v. Germany [2005] ECtHR, para. 91.

  42. See Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 122, and Jahn and Others v. Germany [2005] ECtHR, para. 91.

  43. James and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 46.

  44. Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom [1986] ECtHR, para. 109.

  45. Ibid., para. 120.

  46. Ibid., para. 121.

  47. Ibid., para. 120; Jahn and Others v. Germany [2005] ECtHR, para. 11 ff.

  48. On the application of the margin of appreciation doctrine to the terms of compensation under the second rule in Article P1-1, see Arai-Takahashi 2002, p. 162 ff.

  49. See for example Pine Valley Develpments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland [1991] ECtHR, para. 56, concerning a judicial decision holding an outline permission to be invalid together with a State’s failure to validate that permission retrospectively.

  50. Handyside v. The United Kingdom [1976] ECtHR, para. 63.

  51. Ibid., para. 62; Marckx v. Belgium [1979] ECtHR, para. 64.

  52. Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden [1989] ECtHR, para. 58.

  53. Handyside v. The United Kingdom [1976] ECtHR, para. 62.

  54. Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (No. 1) [1989] ECtHR, para. 57.

  55. Pine Valley Developments Ltd. v. Ireland [1991] ECtHR, para. 57.

  56. Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden [1989] ECtHR, para. 59.

  57. Ibid., para. 61-62; Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (No. 1) [1989] ECtHR, para. 59–63.

  58. Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden [1989] ECtHR, para. 62.

  59. See for example Chassagnou and others v. France [1999] ECtHR, para. 85.

  60. As is well-known, such was the case of the German Federal Constitutional Court with its Solange I Judgment (BVerfGE 37, 271 2 BvL, 52/71, 29 May 1974) and of the Italian Constitutional Court in case no. 183/73.

  61. Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECJ, para. 4.

  62. Case C-4/73, Nold [1974] ECJ, para. 13–14.

  63. Case 44/79, Liselotte Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECJ, para. 17 ff.

  64. Ibid., para. 23.

  65. See Akkermans and Raemaekers 2010, p. 292 ff. A critical approach to this interpretation can be found in Losada Fraga et al. 2012.

  66. Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v. Republik Österreich [1999] ECJ, para. 38.

  67. See Praduroux 2013, p. 41, with further references.

  68. For a succinct analysis of this provision, see Douglas-Scott 2011, p. 645 ff.

  69. Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ C 303, 14/12/2007, p. 0017–0035), originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention.

  70. See the Preamble to the CFR.

  71. For all, see Case C-283/11, Sky Österreich GmbH v. Österreichischer Rundfunk [2013] ECJ, para. 34: the protection granted by Article 17 CFR does not apply to mere commercial interests or opportunities, the uncertainties of which are part of the very essence of economic activity, but to rights with an asset value creating an established legal position under the legal system, enabling the holder to exercise those rights autonomously and for his benefit.

  72. Joined cases C-402/05 and C-415/05, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECJ, para. 368 (duty to afford the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the competent authorities).

  73. For many, see Case C-380/03, Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2006] ECJ, para. 145, about an EU measure restricting the freedom of expression.

  74. Although this figure has traditionally been translated as “legal reservation,” we consider that the expression “statutory reservation” better describes the essence of this concept, since we are talking about a principle in virtue of which certain matters must compulsorily be regulated by Law.

  75. “Individual appeal for constitutional protection” this is the translation given for “recurso de amparo” (a particular form of fundamental rights protection constitutional appeal in the Spanish legal system) provided by the official English version of the 1978 Spanish Constitution accessible at http://www.congreso.es/constitucion/ficheros/c78/cons_ingl.pdf (last accessed: 12 December 2014).

  76. Concerning the Spanish Constitutional Court’s case-law on the right of property, see Pardo Falcon 1995, p. 67 ff..

  77. SCC, Judgment 37/1987 of 26 March, FJ. 2.

  78. According to Article 348 of the Spanish Civil Code, ownership is “the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without greater limitations than those set forth in the laws”. It has been observed that the existence of a constitutional concept of property detached from and broader than the one enshrined under private law is a constant in comparative law (Riza Çoban 2003, p. 31–34, with further references).

  79. SCC, Judgment 227/1988 of 29 November, FJ. 11.

  80. SCC, Judgment 178/1989 of 2 November, FJ. 9.

  81. SCC, Judgment 37/1987 of 26 March, FJ. 3.

  82. Ibid., FJ. 2.

  83. Idem.

  84. Idem.

  85. SCC, Judgment 227/1988, of 29 November, FJ. 11.

  86. Idem.

  87. Only the SCC can control the constitutionality of norms with the rank of law, and furthermore the remedy of amparo before the SCC can not be used in respect of Article 33 SC alone.

  88. SCC, Judgments 166/1986 of 19 December, FJ. 13º, and 48/2005 of 3 March, FJ. 6º. On the latter, see Rey Martínez 2007, p. 397 ff., and Ortega Bernardo 2007, p. 293 ff.

  89. SCC, Judgment 166/1986 of 19 December, FJ. 13.

  90. SCC, Judgment 111/1983 of 2 December, FJ. 8.

  91. SCC, Judgment 166/1986 of 19 December, FJ. 13.

  92. Supreme Court, Judgment 2799/2001 of 3 April.

  93. SCC, Judgment 28/1997 of 13 February, FJ. 7. A well-founded criticism of this understanding can be found in Rodríguez de Santiago 2008, p. 193–194.

  94. On the multilevel system of protection of fundamental rights within the European Union, see, for all, Torres Pérez 2009, p. 27 ff., and Alonso García 2014.

  95. See the Draft revised agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2013], available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Accession/Meeting_reports/47_1(2013)008rev2_EN.pdf (last accessed: 14 January 2014).

  96. Article 1(1) of the Draft revised agreement on the accesion of the EU to the ECHR, cited above.

  97. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [2005] ECtHR, para. 153. This interpretation had already been implicitly formulated in Matthews v. The United Kingdom [1999] ECtHR.

  98. Ibid., para. 155–156.

  99. Ibid., para. 155.

  100. Ibid., para. 155–156.

  101. See among others Besselink 2008, Costello 2006, p. 87 ff., Douglas-Scott 2006, p. 629 ff., Eckes 2007, p. 47 ff., Kuhnert 2006, p. 177 ff., Sumner 2008, p. 127 ff.

  102. In Michaud v. France [2012] ECtHR, a French measure implementing EU law was considered to infringe Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life). The Strasbourg Court refused the presumption of equivalent protection because the French Conseil d’État had rejected to raise a preliminary ruling to the ECJ without giving reasons (para. 115). In Matthews v. The United Kingdom [1999] ECtHR, the United Kingdom was held responsible for the breach of the right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) through a measure of implementation of EU law. According to the ECtHR, no equivalent protection had been provided under EU law in this case, given that the interference with such right had been caused by a norm of primary EU law, which could not be reviewed by the ECJ (para. 33). On both cases, see Cortés Martín 2013, p. 935 ff.

  103. See Article 3 of the Draft revised agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, cited above.

  104. O’Meara 2010, p. 1828.

  105. For critics on this late possibility see Besselink 2008. For a general discussion on the potential impact of the EU accession on the future relationship between ECtHR and EU Courts, see O’Meara 2010, p. 1828, Douglas-Scott 2006, p. 629 ff., Lock 2010, p. 777 ff. For an overall view of the potential implications of the accession, see Weiβ 2011, p. 64 ff.

  106. On the relations between the ECHR system and national legal orders, in general, see Garlicki 2008, p. 509 ff.

  107. SCC, Judgements 36/1991 of 14 February, FJ. 5, and 64/1991 of 22 March, FJ. 4.

  108. Instrumento de Ratificación del Protocolo Adicional al Convenio para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y de las Libertades Fundamentales, hecho en París el 20 de marzo de 1952 (BOE No. 11, of 12 January 1991, p. 1087–1088).

  109. Barcelona Llop 2013, p. 12 ff., Barnés Vázquez and Guichot Reina 1995, p. 124 ff.

  110. SCC, Judgement 48/2005 of 3 March, FJ. 4.

  111. See the Instrument of Ratification, cited n. 108.

  112. See Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain [2010] ECtHR, and Rúspoli Morenés v. Spain [2011] ECtHR, where the Court considered that no breach of Article P1-1 had existed.

  113. See Muñoz Díaz v. Spain [2009] ECtHR, Tendam v. Spain [2010] ECtHR, and Manzanas Martín v. Spain [2012] ECtHR.

  114. However, conflicts between both legal systems have arisen with regard to other fundamental rights, as recently demonstrated in relation with the right, among others, to a procedure prescribed by law (Article 5.1 ECHR) by the Judgment of the ECtHR in Del Río Prada v. Spain [2010]. On Article 10(2) SC see Saiz Arnaiz 2001.

  115. On the usefulness of this mechanism for the cooperation among jurisdictions within a composite constitutional space, see Voßkuhle 2010, García Roca 2010.

  116. Tkachevy v. Russia [2012] ECtHR, para. 39.

  117. Lecarpentier v. France [2006] ECtHR, para. 47.

  118. See De Luca v. Italy [2013] ECtHR, para. 54, and Pennino v. Italy [2013] ECtHR, para. 58. This approach had been already adopted by the Court in its previous case Bourdov v. Russia [2002] ECtHR, para. 41.

  119. On this issue, see Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo 2014.

  120. In this section only the CFR is considered. Although EU law keeps on protecting fundamental rights as general principles according Article 6(3) TEU, legal literature uses to consider that such provision entails a basis for a residual category of fundamental rights, useful in case of a gap in the Charter, or to overcome the special regime attributed to the Charter in Poland and the United Kingdom by Articles 1(2) and 2 of Protocol No. 30 to the Lisbon Treaty. See in this respect Ladenburger 2012, p. 145 ff.

  121. Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECJ, para. 19 ff. For a review on this case see Hancox 2013, p. 1411 ff., Iglesias Sánchez 2013, p. 1157 ff.

  122. Until the entry into force of the Charter, the ECJ had applied fundamental rights as general principles of EU law to two types of situations: those of “implementation” of EU law, in which Member States enforce EU rules as agents of the Union (the so-called Wachauf line) and those of activity “within the scope of application” of EU law, in which Member States enjoy a certain margin of discretion, including situations of derogation from fundamental freedoms (the ERT line).

  123. See Sarmiento 2013, p. 1274.

  124. Article 52(4) CFR: “In so far as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions”. Article 52(6) CFR: “Full account shall be taken of national laws and practices as specified in this Charter”.

  125. SCC, Judgment 37/2011 of 28 March, FJ. 4.

  126. Sarmiento 2013, p. 1288. A critical on the interpretation of the horizontal provisions of the Charter by the ECJ can be found in Kingreen 2013, p. 801 ff.

  127. Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal [2013] ECJ, para. 58–64. This judgment had its origin in the first reference for a preliminary ruling raised by the SCC. On the premisses and implications of the case, see Arroyo Jiménez 2011, Torres Pérez 2012, p. 105 ff. On the Melloni Judgement of the ECJ see Díez-Hochleitner 2013.

  128. This situation may give rise to incongruences: for example, if a State measure fully determined by EU law is considered by the ECtHr, given the circumstances of a particular case, to breach the presumption of equivalent protection, the respective State could be held responsible of infringing P1-1 for a measure beyond its capacity for decision, and to which, according the ECJ in Melloni, the fundamental rights of the domestic Constitution do not apply.

  129. Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECJ, para. 29; Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal [2013] ECJ, para. 60.

  130. See Sect. 2.3 in this paper.

  131. Ibid.

  132. Case C-208/09, Sayn-Wittgenstein [2010] ECJ, para. 86, and A. G. Maduro’s Opinion in Case C-213/07, Michaniki [2008] ECJ, para. 33. See also Von Bogdandy and Schill 2011, p. 14 ff.

  133. SCC, Declaration 1/2004 of 13 December, FJ. 2.

  134. Ibid., FJ. 4.

  135. See Case C-434/11, Corpul National al Politistilor v. Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor (MAI) and others [2011] ECJ; Case C-134/12, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor (MAI), Inspectoratul General al Poliţiei Române (IGPR) and Inspectoratul de Poliţie al Judeţului Tulcea (IPJ) v. Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor-Biroul Executiv Central [2012] ECJ; Case C-369/12, Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor - Biroul Executiv Central v. Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor and others [2012] ECJ; Case C-128/12, Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and others v. BPN [2013] ECJ. On this attitude of the ECJ and its implications, although refering to labour rights, Barnard 2013, p. 250 ff.

References

  • Akkermans B, Raemaekers E (2010) Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), its meanings and interpretations. Eur Law J 16(3):292–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander GS, Peñalver EM (2013) An introduction to property theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen T (2003) The autonomous meaning of ‘Possessions’ under the European convention on human rights. In: Cooke E (ed) Modern studies in property law, vol 2. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso García R (2014) El juez nacional en la encrucijada europea de los derechos fundamentales. Civitas/Thomson Reuters, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Arai-Takahashi Y (2002) The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia, Antewerp-Oxford-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo Jiménez L (2011) Sobre la primera cuestión prejudicial planteada por el Tribunal Constitucional. Bases, contenidos y consecuencias. Work Paper IDEIR 8

  • Barcelona Llop J (2013) Propiedad, privación de la propiedad y expropiación forzosa en el sistema del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2013) The charter in time of crisis: a case study on dismissal. In: Countouris N, Freedland M (eds) Resocialising Europe in a time of crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 250–277

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnés Vázquez J, Guichot Reina E (1995) La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre la Propiedad Privada. Barnés Vázquez J (coord) Propiedad, expropiación y responsabilidad. La garantía indemnizatoria en el Derecho europeo y comparado. Tecnos, Madrid, pp 124–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Besselink LFM (2008) The European Union and the European convention on human rights after the Lisbon treaty: from Boshporus sovereign immunity to full scrutiny? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1132788. Accessed 12 Dec 2014

  • Cortés Martín JM (2013) Sobre el sistema unionista de protección de los derechos humanos y la ruptura de su presunción de equivalencia con el CEDH. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 46:935–971

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello C (2006) The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe. Human Rights Law Review 6(1):87–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díez-Hochleitner J (2013) El derecho a la última palabra: ¿Tribunales constitucionales o Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión? Work paper IDEIR 17

  • Douglas-Scott S (2006) A tale of two courts: luxembourg, Strasbourg and the growing European Human Rights Acquis. Common Market Law Rev 43(3):629–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Scott S (2011) The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon. Human Rights Law Rev 2011:645–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckes C (2007) Does the European court of human rights provide protection from the European community? The case of Posphorus Airways. Eur Public Law 13(1):47–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambaro A (2011) Property rights in comparative perspective: why property is so ancient and durable. Tulane Eur Civil Law Forum 26:205–229

    Google Scholar 

  • García Roca J (2010) El margen de apreciación nacional en la interpretación del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos: soberanía e integración. Civitas/Thomson Reuters, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Garlicki L (2008) Cooperation of courts: the role of supranational jurisdictions in Europe. Int J Const Law 6:509–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancox E (2013) The meaning of ‘implementing’ EU law under Article 51(1) of the Charter: Åkerberg Fransson. Common Market Law Rev 50(5):1411–1431

    Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias Sánchez S (2013) La confirmación del ámbito de aplicación de la Carta y su interrelación con el estándar de protección. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 46:1157–1175

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingreen T (2013) Die Grundrechte des Grundgesetzes im europäischen Grundrechtsföderalismus. Juristen Zeitung 68(17):801–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnert K (2006) Bosphorus, Double standards in European human rights protection? Utrecht Law Rev 2(2):177–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladenburger C (2012) European Union Institutional Report. In: Laffranque J (ed) The protection of fundamental rights post-Lisbon: the interaction between the charter of fundamental rights of the European union, the European convention on human rights and national constitutions. Tartu University Press, Tallin, pp 145–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock T (2010) EU accession to the ECHR: implications for the judicial review in Strasbourg. Eur Law Rev 35(6):777–798

    Google Scholar 

  • Losada Fraga F, Juutilainen T, Havu K, Vesala J (2012) Property and European integration: dimensions of article 345 TFEU. Helsinki legal studies research paper 17

  • O’Meara NO (2010) A more secure Europe of rights? The European court of human rights, the court of justice of the European union and EU accession to the ECHR. Ger Law J 12(10):1813–1832

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega Bernardo J (2007) Límites constitucionales en la adopción por ley de medidas concretas de carácter administrativo: comentario a la STC 48/2005, sobre la Ley de expropiación para la ampliación de la sede del Parlamento de Canarias. Revista de Administración Pública 172:293–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo Falcon J (1995) El Tribunal Constitucional y la propiedad. In: Barnés J (coord) Propiedad, expropiación y responsabilidad. La garantía indemnizatoria en el Derecho europeo y comparado. Tecnos/Junta de Andalucía, Madrid, pp 67–87

  • Praduroux S (2013) The protection of property rights in comparative perspective: a study on the interaction between European human rights law and Italian and French property law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey Martínez F (2007) El nuevo criterio de «la tutela materialmente equivalente» en relación con las expropiaciones legislativas (la STC 48/2005). Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 19:397–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Riza Çoban A (2003) Protection of property rights within the European convention on human rights. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez de Santiago JM (2008) Las garantías constitucionales de la propiedad y de la expropiación forzosa a los treinta años de la Constitución Española. Revista de Administración Pública 177:157–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiz Arnaiz A (2001) La apertura constitucional al Derecho internacional y europeo de los derechos humanos. El artículo 10.2 de la Constitución Española. Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid

  • Sarmiento D (2013) Who’s afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, national courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe. Common Market Law Rev 50(5):1267–1304

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner G (2008) We’ll sometimes have Strasbourg: privileged status of community law before the European court of human rights. Irish Stud Law Rev 16:127–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres Pérez A (2009) Conflicts of rights in the European union. A theory of supranational adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Torres Pérez A (2012) Constitutional dialogue on the European arrest warrant: the Spanish constitutional court knocking on Luxembourg’s door. Eur Const Law Rev 8:105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo D (2012) Las garantías del derecho de propiedad privada en Europa: Derecho de la Unión Europea y Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo D (2014) Tutela judicial, garantía patrimonial e insolvencia de la Administración: acerca de los asuntos De Luca c. Italia y Pennino c. Italia (SSTEDH de 24 de septiembre de 2013. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional Europeo 21: forthcoming

  • Van Drooghenbroeck S (2000/2001) The concept of ‘possessions’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Legal Forum 7:437–444

  • Von Bogdandy A, Schill S (2011) Overcoming absolute primacy: respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Rev 48(5):1417–1453

    Google Scholar 

  • Voβkuhle A (2010) Protection of human rights in the European union. Multilevel cooperation on human rights between the European constitutional courts. http://www.ourcommonfuture.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien/Reden/Vosskuhle.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2014

  • Weiβ W (2011) Human rights in the EU: rethinking the role of the European convention on Human rights after Lisbon. Eur Const Law Rev 7(1):64–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winisdoerffer Y (1998) Margin of appreciation and article 1 of protocol no. 1. Human Rights Law J 1:18–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Law, University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), Ciudad Real, Spain

    Dolores Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo

  2. Center for European Studies (UCLM), Ronda de Calatrava s/n, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Dolores Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo

Authors
  1. Dolores Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dolores Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo.

Additional information

Conference pronounced at the workshop “Constitutional Protection of Economic Activities in China and EU”, held at the China University of Political Sciences and Law (Beijing) on March 28th, 2014.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernández-Bermejo, D.U. The multilevel protection of the right of property in Europe. China-EU Law J 4, 75–103 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0050-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0050-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation