BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURİZM VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 39 Community. They relied on M. & Co., cited above, noting that human rights safeguards within the Community legal order had been further strengthened since the adoption of the decision in that case. 132. On the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the United Kingdom Government underlined the importance of the public interest at stake, considered that the margin of appreciation was therefore wide, and argued that, even if the applicant company was an innocent party, this would not render the interference with its property rights disproportionate (see AGOSI and Air Canada, both cited above). 4. The Institut de formation en droits de l'homme du barreau de Paris (“the Institut”) 133. The Institut considered the case compatible with the provisions of the Convention. However, it was equally of the view that this would not prevent member States from complying with their Community obligations or mean that the Court would have jurisdiction to examine Community provisions in the light of the Convention. The application was compatible ratione personae, since the object of the case was not to challenge United Nations or European Community provisions but rather Ireland's implementation of them. It was compatible ratione materiae because Article 1 of the Convention did not exclude a particular type of measure or any part of a member State's jurisdiction from scrutiny. The Institut pointed, by way of illustration, to the matters assessed by the Court in a number of cases including those of Cantoni, Matthews, and Waite and Kennedy (all cited above). Since neither the United Nations nor the European Community provided equivalent human rights protection (especially when seen from the point of view of individual access to that protection and the limitations of the preliminary reference procedure), the complaint had to be found compatible with the provisions of the Convention. 134. As to the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Institut considered the initial impoundment of the aircraft to be entirely justified but left open the justifiability of the retention of the aircraft after October 1994. III. THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT A. Article 1 of the Convention 135. The parties and third parties made substantial submissions under Article 1 of the Convention about the Irish State's Convention responsibility for the impoundment given its Community obligations. This Article provides: