DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR BASIL HALL

                    JOINED BY MRS. J. LIDDY

1.   With regret I do not share the opinion of the majority of the

Commission that there was a violation of the rights of the applicants

under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in this case.

2.   I agree that measures taken by the municipality of Athens in

relation to the immoveable property of the Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. may

well have constituted violations of that Company's entitlement under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the peaceful enjoyment

of its possessions.

3.   The Company, which was unable to meet its obligations was on

10 August 1983 put into liquidation at a General Meeting of its

shareholders.  On 30 August 1983 liquidators were appointed by the

company in General Meeting.  On 8 November 1983 Law 1386/83 was applied

which made special provision for liquidation.  Liquidators (replacing

those appointed in General Meeting) were appointed by the Court, one

to protect the shareholders' interests and one to protect the interests

of the creditors, and in particular the principal creditor, the Bank

of Greece.  From the 21 October 1991 there has been one liquidator only

appointed, on the proposal of the Bank of Greece.

4.   Whether appointed by the Company in General Meeting or appointed

under Law 1386/83 the basic duties of liquidators are to get in the

assets, dispose of them to best advantage, and then, out of the

proceeds, to pay the administrative costs, to pay the Company's debts

to the extent that the funds realised allow, and if there is a surplus

to distribute it amongst the shareholders.  In order to dispose of the

assets to best advantage they may continue to carry on the Company's

business.

5.   The three applicant companies are shareholders in Karolos Fix

Brewery S.A. None is majority shareholder.  Their shareholdings, added

together, amount to just over one-half of the total shareholding.  They

complain that the measures taken by the Municipality of Athens

constitute a violation of their entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment

of their possessions, given by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the

Convention.

6.   As I have remarked above there may well have been violations of

the rights of Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. under that provision.  The

question is whether the measures taken by the Municipality of Athens -

essentially the threat of acquisition and the interference with land

and buildings - also constituted a violation of the applicants' rights.

It does not appear that there was any interference with the applicants'

shareholding.  Nor is it established that as a result of the measures

taken by the Municipality of Athens there was a diminution in the value

of their shares.  There is indeed no indication that, after realisation

of the Company's assets, there is likely to be a surplus for

distribution to shareholders.  The question is then whether the

applicants have suffered a violation of Article 1 para. 1 by reason of

interference by the Authorities with possessions which are under

National Law not possessions of the applicants, but possessions of a

Company in which the applicants hold shares.

7.   In my opinion as a matter of general principle Article 1 gives

rights only to the natural or legal person whose possessions have been

interfered with.  It does not give rights to others indirectly

affected, such as the shareholders of a Company to which the

possessions in question belong, or indeed the creditors of such a

company in liquidation who might well be more directly affected than

the shareholders.

8.8. The Commission in its admissibility decision placed much weight

in considering whether the veil of the Company's legal personality

should be lifted on the argument that the Company "has been essentially

under effective state control"and "cannot therefore be expected to

lodge an application with the Commission".  Here I would only comment

that I have noted the observation of the Government that the Company

was not being administered by the Organisation for Redressment of

Undertakings acting under Article 8 of Law 1386/83 but by liquidators

appointed by the Court under Articles 7 and 9.  The liquidators' duties

in such a special liquidation are, it is stated, not substantially

different from those in an ordinary liquidation.

     I can see nothing which would have prevented the Company through

its liquidators lodging an application under Article 25 of the

Convention had it been considered that the course would have

contributed to the effective liquidation of the Company.

9.   I conclude that none of the applicant companies has established

that there has been an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of any

of its possessions.

10.  The three applicant companies also complain that the Greek legal

order prevents them from having access to a Court to seek judicial

protection in their capacity as shareholders in the Karolos Fix Brewery

S.A. in violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

11.  The contention of the applicants is, as I understand it, that

they should have been able to institute proceedings in the National

Courts to assert the rights of Karolos Fix Brewery S.A. if the company

refused through its liquidators to take such action.  In my view

neither Article 6 nor Article 13 requires a member state to give such

a remedy.

     If I misunderstand their contention, and it is rather that the

Greek legal order as a generality gave insufficient protection to them

as shareholders, it is not the function of the Convention organs to

make a general examination of the national law.  In the particular

circumstances of the case I do not discern any lack of access for

determination of a civil right nor any lack of a remedy for an arguable

violation of the Convention.

12.  I therefore too conclude that there was no violation of Article 6

or Article 13 of the Convention.

                                                 (Or. English)