Agoudimos v Greece
Legislation that interfered with rights arising out of a court award breached Articles 6 and 1 Protocol 1
Appolonov v Russia
Legislative promises to maintain the value of government savings do not serve as a basis for a property claim under Article 1 Protocol 1
Back v Finland
Debt adjustment arrangements which protect the debtor from bankruptcy but reduce creditors' claims is a justifiable interference with Article 1 Protocol 1
In order to render the Insolvency Act 1986 compatible with a bankrupt's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights it might be necessary to recognise in certain cases that creditors’ rights do not always prevail against all other interests.
The expropriation of registered land without compensation by operation of the principle of adverse possession does not advance any of the legitimate aims of the statutory provisions and is a disproportionate infringement of Article 1 protocol 1
Birk v United Kingdom
Complaint about statutory powers to interfere with a bankrupt's correspondence contrary to Article 8 struck off the list after a friendly settlement
For property transactions such as the transfer of housing under the Housing Act from one registered landlord to another, the appropriate test of proportionality under Article 1 Protocol 1 required a decision which was justified on the basis of a compelling case in the public interest and as being reasonably necessary but not obligatorily the least intrusive of Convention rights.
The Hunting Act 2004 infringes neither EC law nor the European Convention of Human Rights.
The public interest consideration, namely, the effective defence of the realm involving the training of jet pilots, did not prevent a noise nuisance from arising, but was relevant to remedy.
EP v Italy
The failure of the state to enforce possession warrants where leases have expired or been repudiated constitutes a deprivation of property under Article 1 Protocol 1
Evangelical Church v Lithuania
The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
When notifying a site as an area of special scientific interest, English Nature was carrying out a statutory duty and any challenge under Article 1 Protocol 1 should therefore be addressed at that statute, not the step taken by English Nature itself.
Former King of Greece v Greece
Members of the royal family owned property as private individuals and the failure to pay any compensation on expropriation was a violation of their rights under Article 1 Protocol 1.
Fotopoulou v Greece
Property owner has a right under Article 1 Protocol 1 to prevail upon the authorities to enforce adverse planning decisions against developer
Horsham Properties Group Ltd (Claimant) v Paul James Clark and Carol Ann Beech (Defendants) & GMAC RFC Ltd (Third party) & Secretary of State for Justice (Intervener)
 EWHC 2327 (Ch)
The right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1 Protocol 1 was not infringed by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which permits mortgagees to sell properties without first obtaining a court order for possession.
Kopecky v Poland
Reverse onus provisions in legislation relating to property did not violate either Article 6 or Article 1 Protocol 1
Kopecky v Slovakia
The foundation for any claim to be a possession under Article 1 Protocol 1 must be a proved legitimate expectation, which cannot be established if a precondition to a claim to property has not been fulfilled
Kutic v Croatia
Legislation removing the rights of property owners to claim damages against local authorities for losses incurred as a result of terrorist activities may breach Article 6
The loss of value to landowners caused by neighbouring developments did not constitute a separate or independent basis for alleging a breach of Articles 8 and Article1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Not every adverse effect on residential amenity would amount to an infringement of the right to respect for a person's home under Article 8(1).
The Rail Regulator's scheme for calculating compensation due to the operator of passenger rail services for disruption and alteration to station access was reasonable and did not infringe Protocol 1 Article 1 of the Convention.
Banks taking possession proceedings for arrears of mortgage payments are pursuing a legitimate aim under Article 8(2) namely "the rights of others" i.e. mortgagees
Polacek v Czech Republic
A claim to property restitution could not amount to a legitimate expectation protected by Article 1 Protocol 1 if a condition precedent for reclaiming the property could not be fulfilled.
R(New London College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 856 (Admin)
Students, visas and the points system: difficulties in enforcement
The ultra vires defence to the application of the principle of legitimate expectation could not be overcome by recourse to Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention
Smokovitis v Greece
Legislative interference in employment litigation violated the applicants' rights under Article 6 and Article 1 Protocol in so far as their claims were "possessions"
A person could not apply under Section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a declaration that legislation was incompatible with the Convention unless he was adversely affected by it. The differential treatment of tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in respect of notices to quit was not discriminatory within Article 14 of the Convention because it did not depend on their property or status but solely on the content of the covenant alleged to have been breached.
Truhli v Croatia
Removal of previously determined pension rights by retrospective legislation did not constitute an unjustifiable violation of Article 1 Protocol 1
Voyias v Information Commissioner and the London Borough of Camden EA/2011/0007
Council ordered to disclose list of empty properties to squatting campaigner
Walker and Brian v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council; R (on application of Walker) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
 EWHC 62 (QB)
QBD (Admin) (Wilkie J)
A compulsory purchase order would not be quashed where there had been sufficient consultation and a fair balance had been struck between the use of compulsory purchase powers and the rights of objectors under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 and Protocol 1 Art.1.