Abstract

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rigths, that aproved restrictive state measures to the right of property of public servants, adopted by some european countries under the economic crisis that affected such continent from 2008, show that such decisions were coherent with the traditional standards given by the European Court in terms of the margin of appreciacion of the european states in socioeconomic matters and the aplication of the proportionality as a standard to assess such restrictive measures. Nevertheless, those decisions show, likewise, how the distinction made by the Court between “deprivation” and “interference” to the right of property, may, in exceptional ocasions, facilitate the preeminence of the public interests of the state over the right of property.