GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 25 peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59, 8 December 2009). 97. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 also requires that any interference be reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised. In other words, a “fair balance” must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, amongst many other authorities, The Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 79 and 82, ECHR 2000-XII, and Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, §§ 81-94, ECHR 2005-VI). Furthermore, a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of political, economic or social strategy, and the Court generally respects the legislature’s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” (see Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07, 52677/07, 52687/07 and 52701/07, § 103, 24 June 2014). (i) Lawfulness of the interference 98. The Court notes that the forfeiture of the applicants’ property was ordered by the domestic courts on the basis of Article 37 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Chapter IV (Articles 21 §§ 4 to 11) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, introduced by the amendment of 13 February 2004. Having regard to the wording of those provisions, the Court considers that there cannot be any doubt about their clarity, precision or foreseeability (see, for instance, Khoniakina v. Georgia, no. 17767/08, § 75, 19 June 2012, and Grifhorst v. France, no. 28336/02, § 91, 26 February 2009). 99. As to the applicants’ argument that it was arbitrary to extend retrospectively the scope of the confiscation mechanism to the property that they had acquired prior to the entry into force of the amendment of 13 February 2004, the Court observes at the outset that the amendment in question was not the first piece of legislation in the country which required public officials to be held accountable for the unexplained origins of their wealth. Thus, as far back as 1997 the Act on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in the Public Service had already addressed such issues as corruption offences and the obligation of public officials to declare and justify the origins of their property and that of their close entourage, subject to possible criminal, administrative or disciplinary liability the exact nature of which was to be regulated by separate laws governing breaches of those anti-corruption requirements (see paragraphs 44-48 above). That being so, it is clear that the amendment of 13 February 2004 merely regulated afresh the pecuniary aspects of the existing anti-corruption legal standards.