SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 20 82. In these circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to consider these complaints. C. Alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 83. The applicants maintained that the destruction of their homes and of Mrs Selçuk’s mill by the security forces, and their expulsion from the village, constituted violations both of Article 8 of the Convention, which reads: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 84. The Government denied that there had been any violation of these provisions, on the same grounds as those advanced in connection with Article 3 (see paragraph 73 above). 85. The Commission found that there had been a breach of these Articles. 86. The Court recalls that it finds it established that security forces deliberately destroyed the applicants’ homes and household property, and the mill partly owned by Mrs Selçuk, obliging them to leave İslamköy (see paragraph 77 above). There can be no doubt that these acts, in addition to giving rise to violations of Article 3, constituted particularly grave and unjustified interferences with the applicants’ rights to respect for their private and family lives and homes, and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.