DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. S. TRECHSEL

                 JOINED BY MM. C.L. ROZAKIS AND J.-C. GEUS

      To my regret I cannot follow the opinion expressed by my

colleagues according to which the interference with the property of the

applicant company was in conformity with Article 1 of the Protocol.

      I first come to the conclusion that the exercise of the

"bodemrecht" in the present case falls to be considered as a

deprivation of property to the detriment of the applicant.  In fact,

the very purpose of selling an object under a retention title consists

in securing the claim of the vendor to the full price in case the buyer

were to become unable to fulfil his obligations.  Under civil law there

is no doubt that, in the present case the applicant remained the owner

of the concrete mixing machine.  Economically, with the payment of

instalments by Atlas the right of Gasus would gradually lose substance,

but this aspect is not relevant to the present case as the machine was

seized while it was still being installed.

      The exercise of the "bodemrecht" by the tax authorities thus

deprived Gasus not only of a "nuda proprietas" but of their possessions

in the sense of Article 1 para. 1, second sentence, of Protocol No. 1.

      Leaving aside the sheer economical interest of filling the

treasury, which cannot be meant by that provision, I can think of no

"public interest" which could justify such an expropriation as there

exists no link whatsoever between the claims of the Dutch tax

authorities and the applicant company's possessions.  I am not aware

of any other legislation which would allow the tax authorities to

confiscate the property of a third party which happens to be on the

premises of a tax debtor.

      I also fail to find any justification for this "bodemrecht" when

taking into account the economic background of the

"eigendomsvoorbehoud".  It is a relatively simple instrument of credit

which may have great practical importance.  This instrument is deprived

of its value when the seller must fear that the tax authorities will

interfere as, in particular, he has no possibility of finding out

whether his partner, the buyer, has paid his taxes due.

      Even assuming that the State could claim a legitimate interest

in applying the "bodemrecht", quod non, I would still find that, as the

applicant company was left without even the commencement of any

compensation, no fair balance was struck between the interests of the

fiscal authorities and those of the applicant company.  Only in passing

do I wish to express some astonishment at the way in which Dutch

legislation accords a privileged position to the fiscal authorities in

comparison to other creditors.

      For the reasons set out above I conclude that there has been a

violation of Article 1 of the Protocol in the present question.

                                                             (ORG. E)