PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. G. RESS

     I agree with the general approach taken by Mr. Busuttil and

Mr. Loucaides.

     It seems quite artificial to me to come to different conclusions

under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,

especially in this case where the "possessions" involved under Article

1 are the claims whose "determination" is at issue under Article 6.

     In connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, I would stress

that the original intention of Parliament cannot have been very clear

to anybody, even not to the average building society, as it took

extensive court proceedings before that intention was "clarified".

Further, I would lay particular emphasis on the difficulty for the

applicant societies in foreseeing, even in the light of the judgments

in the Woolwich cases, that retroactive legislation would deprive them

of claims made in reliance on the findings of those judgments.