{"id":167037,"date":"2026-02-10T11:58:49","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T11:58:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/?page_id=167037"},"modified":"2026-04-13T19:22:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T19:22:24","slug":"the-right-to-property","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/adjudication\/the-right-to-property\/","title":{"rendered":"O Direito de Propriedade"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wpb-content-wrapper\"><div data-sticky class=\"data-sticky\"><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row scroll-trigger-el scroll-trigger-el-mobile scroll-trigger-el-tablet scroll-trigger-parent has-bg need-focus style-back_color-309354-bg parallax-move row-container\"data-sticky-trigger=\"scroll-trigger\" data-anim-state=\"end\" data-anim-sticky=\"\" data-anim-els=\"\" data-anim-x=\"0\" data-anim-y=\"0\" data-anim-blur=\"0\" data-anim-perspective=\"0\" data-anim-rotate=\"0\" data-anim-origin=\"center\" data-anim-target=\"el\" data-anim-scale=\"100\" data-anim-scale-step=\"\" data-anim-opacity=\"0\" data-anim-radius=\"\" data-anim-radius-unit=\"\" data-anim-start=\"\" data-anim-top=\"0\" data-anim-bottom=\"85\" data-anim-safe=\"\" data-anim-ease=\"none\" data-parallax-move=\"3\" id=\"row-unique-0\"><div class=\"row-background background-element\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-inner\" style=\"background-image: url(https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TEDH.jpg);background-repeat: no-repeat;background-position: center center;background-attachment: scroll;background-size: cover;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode for-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"opacity: 0.5;\"><\/div><div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode not-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"mix-blend-mode:multiply;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div><div class=\"row exa-top-padding exa-bottom-padding exa-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-bottom pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-next-to-blend row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-left align_left column_child col-lg-9 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h3 class=\"font-161747 custom fontspace-111509 font-weight-300 fontsize-167084-custom font-size-custom\" ><span>Adjudication<\/span><\/h3><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h6 class=\"h2 text-color-xsdn-color\" ><span>THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY<\/span><\/h6><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-3 tablet-hidden mobile-hidden single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-0\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-0\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-0\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row has-bg need-focus style-color-xsdn-bg row-next-to-blend row-container\" id=\"row-unique-1\"><div class=\"row single-top-padding single-bottom-padding single-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell quad-block-padding style-color-xsdn-bg has-bg  unradius-std\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"uncode-accordion wpb_accordion wpb_content_element  sign-size-rg w-border\" data-collapsible=\"no\" data-target=\"\" data-active-tab=\"0\" >\n\t\t<div class=\"panel-group wpb_wrapper wpb_accordion_wrapper\" id=\"accordion_566365367\" data-no-toggle=\"1\">\n\n<div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_566365367\" href=\"#d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Grand Chamber Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN (application no. 40167\/06, judgment of 16 June 2015): the intersection between European human rights law and international humanitarian law, the right to humanitarian intervention, jurisdiction over the ceasefire line and the adjacent area, responsibility to protect, duty to protect civilians.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-155662%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-909845 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (application no. 13216\/05, judgment of 16 June 2015): the intersection between European human rights law and international humanitarian law, State secession, \u201cremedial secession\u201d as a human rights imperative, jurisdiction in foreign territory by long-distance remote-controlled exercise of authority, occupation, violation of property rights of displaced persons.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-155353%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-120293 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>HERRMANN v. GERMANY (application no. 9300\/07, judgment of 26 June 2012): conscientious objection to hunting, the State obligation to protect animal \u201crights\u201d, lawful restrictions of property rights conflicting with the proprietor\u2019s conscience; the stare decisis effect of the Court\u2019s judgment, European consensus as a factor of the Court\u2019s case law development; direct discrimination between owners of big and small plots of land with regard to the legal obligation to tolerate hunting by third persons in their land.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-111690%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-207449 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_566365367\" href=\"#6dad8f3c-7309-815556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section I Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"6dad8f3c-7309-815556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MORENO DIAZ PENA AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL (application no. 44262\/10, judgment of 4 June 2012): ECHR as a fourth instance, interpretation of contract.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22display%22:[2],%22languageisocode%22:[%22FRE%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-154729%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-807006 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_566365367\" href=\"#9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section II Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>PIOTRAS BOGDEL v. LITHUANIA (application no. 41248\/06, judgment of 26 November 2013): disproportionate annulment of erroneous administrative contract with bona fide private party, limitation period for claiming invalidity of a contract in action brought by the administration distinct from limitation period in action brought by the private party.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-138559%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-413767 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_566365367\" href=\"#1768653103440-4-8\"><span>Section IV Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"1768653103440-4-8\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>FILKIN v. PORTUGAL (application no. 69729\/12, judgment of 3 March 2020): presumption of guilt against person suspected of money laundering with his assets frozen for more than three years without being accused.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-201549%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-116062 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (application no. 5294\/14, judgment of 29 January 2019): State control over banks, interference with the substance of the shareholders\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-203850%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-206385 btn-round btn-icon-left\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>K\u00d6NYV-T\u00c1R KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (application no. 21623\/13, judgment of 16 October 2018): de facto State monopoly in the schoolbook distribution market, loss of clientele as deprivation of a possession.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-186767%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-160038 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>S.C. SERVICE BENZ COM S.R.L. v. ROMANIA (application no. 58045\/11, judgment of 4 July 2017): vicarious liability, confiscation of property belonging to persons other than the offender<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-174993%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-184907 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-1\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-1\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-1\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"AdjudicationTHE RIGHT TO PROPERTY Grand Chamber Judgments SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN (application no. 40167\/06, judgment of 16 June 2015): the intersection [...]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":166607,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-167037","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/167037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167037"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/167037\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":167618,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/167037\/revisions\/167618"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}