CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr C.L. ROZAKIS

While I agree with the finding of the Commission that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, I am not in a position to follow the reasoning which has been elaborated by the majority in establishing the relevant infringment of the Convention’s provisions.

My essential disagreement with the Commission’s reasoning is the following : the dispute between the former King Constantine and the Hellenic Republic related mainly to three distinct pieces of property, whose ownership has been debated in the Commission : the property of Tatoi , that of Polydendri and that of « Mon Repos ». The parties have pleaded separately on the ownership of these distinct possessions, and have produced arguments and materials supporting their allegations in this respect. I think that the Commission ought to have given clear answers to these conflicting positions, by specifically determining the exact purview of the notion of « possession » in the circumstances of the case, and not simply finding that a violation has occurred in this respect. In other words, it would have been our responsibility to first determine which are the possessions of the former King - which, after all, is the condition for finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 - before embarking on the consideration of whether there had been a violation. To leave the matter of the exact purview of the possessions to be examined at the stage of the determination of compensation, does not appear to me to be the right course to follow either as a matter of interpretation of Article 1 of the Protocol or as a matter of judicial policy.