BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURİZM VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 49 and to the ruling of the ECJ (in the light of the opinion of the Advocate General), a ruling with which the Supreme Court was obliged to and did comply. It considers it clear that there was no dysfunction of the mechanisms of control of the observance of Convention rights. In the Court's view, therefore, it cannot be said that the protection of the applicant company's Convention rights was manifestly deficient, with the consequence that the relevant presumption of Convention compliance by the respondent State has not been rebutted. 4. Conclusion under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 167. It follows that the impoundment of the aircraft did not give rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Dismisses the preliminary objections; 2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 30 June 2005. Christos ROZAKIS President Paul MAHONEY Registrar In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment: (a) joint concurring opinion of Mr Rozakis, Mrs Tulkens, Mr Traja, Mrs Botoucharova, Mr Zagrebelsky and Mr Garlicki; (b) concurring opinion of Mr Ress. C.L.R. P.J.M.