Source: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/protocol-1-article-1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:17:14+00:00

Document:
(3) The principle that States are entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose (second paragraph).
Company shares: Bramelid & Malmstrom v Sweden, (1982) 29 DR 64.
An additional gloss has been given to the meaning of “possessions” under this Article by the Court of Appeal in Wilson v First Country Trust  3 WLR 42 2000 – these include the rights of a leader to enforce a regulated loan agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
More recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that pension scheme regulations in Northern Ireland that required that unmarried co-habiting partners to be nominated in order to be eligible for a survivor’s pension, was interference with the appellant’s right under this provision. The requirement could not be “objectively justified” for the purposes of art 14. There was no similar nomination requirement for married or civil partner survivors (Re an application by Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)  UKSC 8).
Expectation of an inheritance could not constitute a possession under Protocol 1 Art.1 : Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330.
A mere expectation that rates of fees would not be reduced by the law does not constitute a property right: Federal Republic of Germany Application No.00008410/78, (1979) 18 DR 170. Here the applicants, who were notaries, challenged regulations which obliged them to reduce fees for certain public bodies such as universities. The European Commission of Human Rights held that the claim for fees would only be considered as possessions when they came into existence on grounds of services rendered and on the basis of existing regulations.
In Matthews v MoD  3 All ER the Court of Appeal accepted that a right of action in tort was a possession.
As with the other qualified rights, most of the disputes in Article 1 Protocol 1 claims turn on the test of proportionality since the right to enjoyment of property is subject to many provisos and exceptions “in the public interest”. As a result the case law on A1P1 is a rich source of analysis on this question: see for example the Court of Appeal’s informative ruling in Sinclair Collis Ltd, R (o.t.a) v. The Secretary of State for Health  EWCA Civ 437 and Lord Laws LJ’s important dissent, discussed here.

References: art 14
 UKSC 
 Art.1
 Application No.00008410
 v. 
 EWCA