The essence of deprivation of property is the extinction of legal rights of the owner and in the instant case, the Plaintiff. From his application, the Plaintiff contends that he has missed a lot of opportunities as a result of the seizure both in pursuing additional qualifications and in representing clients in court. To further buttress his argument, Plaintiff attached a mandate given to him to represent a group, which opportunity he lost as a result of the said impoundment of his certificates. In IATRIDIS V. GREECE, App No. 31107/96 ECHR, Jud 25th March 1999, the Court established that the authorities’ refusal of the Applicant’s request to repossess the property in question which constituted interference with his property rights had been unlawful and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the European Convention. A measure interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must be necessary in a democratic society directed at achieving a legitimate aim. It must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the individual’s fundamental rights. Such a fair balance will not have been struck where the individual property owner is made to bear an individual and excessive burden. 26