“Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which guarantees in substance the right to property, comprises three distinct rules. The first one, which is expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph, lays down the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property in general. The second rule, in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions. The third, contained in the second paragraph, recognizes that the Contracting States are entitled, among other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule” See GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA, Application no. 36862/05), 12 May 2015 and among others, IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V. 47. Thus flowing from the above rules, in determining whether the Respondent violated this right, the facts must establish the following: a) That the Applicant has proved a proprietary right or possession of the said property; b) That there was an interference with the possession by the Respondent; c) That the interference was for public interest; d) That the interference was in accordance with the appropriate laws. a. Proof of a proprietary right or possession of the said land. 17