The holy right of property

The Agency submitted that the restrictions in question were clearly a control of use of Mr Mott’s property. As to whether a fair balance had been struck, the Agency referred to its important responsibilities with respect to protection of the environment, a factor emphasised in the ECtHR case law [28-30]. Mr Mott submitted that the effect of the conditions was to nullify the practical use of his lease, and thus amounted to expropriation. Even if the conditions were regarded as a control of use, the courts below were entitled to find that they required Mr Mott to shoulder an excessive and disproportionate burden, such that breach of A1P1 could only be prevented by payment of compensation [31].

Against the background of the ECtHR case law, the Court was unable to fault the judge’s analysis of the applicable legal principles in this case [34-36]. The fact that the conditions imposed by the Agency were closer to deprivation than mere control was clearly relevant to the fair balance. The Agency gave no consideration to the particular impact on Mr Mott’s livelihood, which was severe. The judge suggested that the lease retained “some small value” if sold for leisure rather than commercial use but this was doubtful and did not consider restrictions on Mr Mott’s ability to transfer his interest in the lease [36].