26 GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the “lawfulness” requirement contained in Article of Protocol No. 1 cannot normally be construed as preventing the legislature from controlling the use of property or otherwise interfering with pecuniary rights via new retrospective provisions regulating continuing factual situations or legal relations anew (see Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others, cited above, § 104, 24 June 2014; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, § 81, 14 February 2012; Huitson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 50131/12, §§ 31-35, 13 January 2015; and Khoniakina, cited above, § 74). It finds no reason to find otherwise in the present case. 100. The Court therefore finds that the forfeiture of the applicants’ property was in full conformity with the “lawfulness” requirement contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (ii) Legitimate aim 101. As regards the legitimacy of the aim pursued by the impugned confiscation, the Court observes that the measure formed an essential part of a larger legislative package aimed at intensifying the fight against corruption in the public service (see paragraphs 49, 82 and 83 above). Having regard to the domestic legal framework (see paragraphs 52-54 and 85 above), it is evident that the rationale behind the forfeiture of wrongfully acquired property and unexplained wealth owned by persons accused of serious offences committed while in public office and from their family members and close relatives was twofold, having both a compensatory and a preventive aim. 102. The compensatory aspect consisted in the obligation to restore the injured party in civil proceedings to the status which had existed prior to the unjust enrichment of the public official in question, by returning wrongfully acquired property either to its previous lawful owner or, in the absence of such, to the State. This was, for instance, a consequence of the proceedings in rem in the present case, where one of the houses in the first applicant’s wrongful possession turned out to have been obtained from a third party as the result of duress; that third party, a private individual, then acquired entitlement to benefit from the confiscation of that particular property (see paragraphs 34 and 36 above, as well as the Court’s judgment in the case of Tchitchinadze, cited above, §§ 9, 13 and 16). The aim of the civil proceedings in rem was to prevent unjust enrichment through corruption as such, by sending a clear signal to public officials already involved in corruption or considering so doing that their wrongful acts, even if they passed unscaled by the criminal justice system, would nevertheless not procure pecuniary advantage either for them or for their families (see, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo, cited above, § 30; Veits, cited above, § 71; and Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 65, 10 April 2012). 103. The Court accordingly finds that the forfeiture measure in the instant case was effected in accordance with the general interest in ensuring