TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT 18 The Court’s power to review compliance with domestic law is limited. It is in the first place for the national authorities to interpret and apply that law (see the Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, p. 23, para. 54), and nothing in the above-mentioned decision suggests that it was contrary to Swedish law. Neither is there anything in the facts to support the applicant company’s contention that the revocation of its licence did not seek the same purpose as the 1977 Act. In the said decision, the National Board of Health and Welfare had referred to the "great social responsibility" involved in the selling of alcoholic beverages, and had concluded, taking into account the explanations given by TTA as to the thefts of such beverages, that "those who have had a decisive influence on the business have failed to demonstrate sufficient competence regarding both book-keeping and internal control" (see paragraph 19 above). Thus, the withdrawal of TTA’s licence was lawful and pursued the general interest. 2. Proportionality of the interference 59. As was pointed out in the James and Others judgment of 21 February 1986 (Series A no. 98, p. 30, para. 37), the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) has to be construed in the light of the general principle set out in the first sentence of this Article (P1-1). This sentence has been interpreted by the Court as including the requirement that a measure of interference should strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, Series A no. 52, p. 26, para. 69). The search for this balance is reflected in the structure of Article 1 (P1-1) as a whole (ibid.) and hence also in the second paragraph. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see the above-mentioned James and Others judgment, p. 34, para. 50). 60. The Government submitted that for the purposes of applying Article 1 (P1-1) of the Protocol the competent authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation. That margin was particularly wide with regard to Parliament, whose assessment as to the need for legislation, its aims and its effects should be accepted by the Convention institutions unless it was manifestly unreasonable and imposed an "excessive burden" on the person concerned (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned James and Others judgment, Series A no. 98, pp. 32 and 34, paras. 46 and 50). However, the applicant company had not shown that the closing of Le Cardinal was a consequence of the withdrawal of the licence; thus no economic damage flowed therefrom. 61. In respect of this latter point, the Court refers to its statement in paragraph 53 above. It sees no reason to exclude that the restaurant Le