OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE (JOINED BY MR. J.A. FROWEIN)

     While I agree with the Commission that there has been violation

of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and no violation of Article 6 in the

present case I am unable to share the Commission's opinion that

Article 13 has not been violated.

     It is true that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention cannot be

interpreted as requiring that shareholders be allowed to bring before

the domestic civil courts the claims of their company against third

persons.  However, when the shareholders' property rights guaranteed

by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are - indirectly but necessarily -

affected by measures taken against the company and the company as such

is unable to react, Article 13 of the Convention requires that the

domestic legal order grants to the shareholders an effective remedy for

the protection of their rights.

     As no such effective remedy existed in the present case (c.f.

Commission's Decision on the admissibility of this application)

Article 13 of the Convention has been violated.

                                                 (Or. English)