24 GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 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, recognises 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, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V). 93. The Court first observes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the confiscation order concerning the applicants’ movable and immovable assets amounted to interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is therefore applicable. 94. As to which exactly of the three above-mentioned property rules should apply to the applicants’ situation, the Court reiterates that where a confiscation measure has been imposed independently of the existence of a criminal conviction but rather as a result of separate “civil” (within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) judicial proceedings aimed at the recovery of assets deemed to have been acquired unlawfully, such a measure, even if it involves the irrevocable forfeiture of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316‑A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; and Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009). 95. Accordingly, the Court considers that the same approach must be followed in the present case. (c) Compliance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 96. An essential condition for interference to be deemed compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that it should be lawful: the second paragraph recognises that States have the right to control the use of property by enforcing “laws”. Furthermore, any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions can only be justified if it serves a legitimate public (or general) interest. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to decide what is “in the public interest”. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the