“Commemorative Coins”

• 1. In determining whether there has been a deprivation of possessions [here copyright deprivation and consequent lack of remuneration] within the second “rule” of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is necessary not only to consider whether there has been a formal taking or expropriation of property but to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of, ascertaining whether the situation amounts to a de facto expropriation.

• 2. Despite the lack of a formal act of dispossession, the exclusion of artworks from copyright protection, leading to the definitive loss of ability to freely dispose of said works, without explicit or implicit consent to the use of the works without remuneration has such severe consequences that it can be assimilated to deprivation of property within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1.

• 3. Any interference with the right protected by Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 should be lawful, serve a legitimate public (or general) interest, and be reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised.

• 4. Monetary policy falls within the notion of the general interest under Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1.

• 5. The taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value normally constitutes a disproportionate interference and a total lack of compensation can be considered justifiable under Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in exceptional circumstances.

[…]