CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

     I agree with the report in so far as concerns Article 6 of the

Convention. I also fully agree with the finding of a violation

concerning what I regard as the main issue in the present case, i.e.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. While the majority, however, limits itself

to finding an "interference" with the right guaranteed in the first

sentence of Article 1, I would characterize this interference as a

"deprivation" of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence

of that Article.

     As stated in para. 78 of the report, a sufficiently established

claim can constitute a "possession". According to the majority it

appears to be a combination of the arbitral award of 1984 and the debt

of the Greek State to the applicant company, recognised "in principle"

(para. 79 of the report) by the judgment No. 13910/1979 of the First

Instance Court of Athens, that constitutes the claim in question.

     I have certain doubts about the relevance of the "non-definitive"

judgment of 1979. The judgment did not explicitly establish any

liability of the Greek State, although I agree that the acceptance of

such a liability may be inferred from the Court's decision.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the proceedings so far have not led

even to a final first instance judgment, not to speak about a judgment

confirmed in appeal and cassation proceedings. The mere existence of

pending proceedings with a "non-definitive" first instance judgment

recognizing indirectly the liability of the Greek State hardly

constitutes a claim to be regarded as possessions. While one possibly

could see here an element of possessions, to be taken into account with

other elements, I do not, for reasons given below, find it necessary

to take a final stand on the issue.

     I leave the above question open, because in my view the applicant

company had an "established claim" based on the declaratory arbitral

award of 27 February 1984. This award created a property interest which

can and must be regarded as a possession within the meaning of

Article 1 of the Protocol. An arbitral award is, according to Greek

law, final and binding and, as a rule, immediately enforceable.

Although the situation concerning the enforceability of "declaratory

awards" appears to be somewhat unclear, the award in question in any

case confirmed the liability of the Greek State in amounts defined in

a detailed manner in Drachmas, US Dollars and French Francs (see report

para. 26). This award was only subject to challenge by way of setting-

aside proceedings on limited grounds. A challenge action brought by the

Greek State was dismissed by the decision of the Athens First Instance

Court which held, in conformity with widely accepted principles of

arbitration law, that the decision whereby the underlying contract had

been annulled did not affect the validity of the arbitration clause

contained therein. This decision was confirmed on appeal by the Athens

Court of Appeal on 4 November 1986. The Law 1701/1987 intervened just

before the challenge action was to be heard before the final instance,

i.e. the Court of Cassation, and after the Judge Rapporteur had given

his opinion proposing the dismissal of the State's action.

     Although the Court of Cassation did not have an opportunity to

express itself on the validity of the arbitral award before the

legislative intervention, my conclusion is that by the time of that

intervention a claim enjoying the protection of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 had been created in favour of the applicant company.

     I agree with the report that the combined effect of paras. 2 and

3 of Article 12 of Law 1701/1987 amounted to an interference with the

applicants' property rights (see para. 83). I, however, would go a step

further. In my view the interpretative law did not just interfere with

the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions but

in an unequivocal manner took away the claim which had been created by

the arbitral award. Therefore the events in my opinion should be

characterized as a "deprivation" of possessions within the meaning of

the second sentence of Article 1 of the Protocol. This conclusion is

not affected by the fact that some proceedings concerning the

underlying contractual relationships are still, at least in theory,

pending before Greek courts. They cannot change the decisions whereby

the arbitral award was annulled, although they might have impact as

regards the compensation due for the deprivation in question.

     As far as the requirements of the public interest behind and the

proportionality of the measure are concerned, the considerations put

forward by the Commission in paras. 84-88 of the report apply mutatis

mutandis also when the interference is seen as a deprivation of

possessions.

     My above conclusion concerning a violation does not amount to any

opinion as to the justification of the termination of the contract

itself.

                          APPENDIX I

                    HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date                          Item

_________________________________________________________________

20.11.1987                    Introduction and registration of

                              the application

25.01.1990                    Submission of further information

                              by the applicants

Examination of Admissibility

02.04.1990                    Commission's decision to give

                              notice of application to the

                              respondent Government and to

                              invite the parties to submit

                              written observations

30.06.1990                    Government's observations

24.10.1990                    Applicant's observations in reply

01.03.1991                    Commission's decision to invite the

                              Government to submit further

                              observations merits

06.05.1991                    Government's further observations

13.6.1991                     Applicants' further observations in

                              reply

04.07.1991                    Commission's decision to declare

                              the application admissible

Examination of the Merits

15.07.1991                    Parties invited to submit further

                              information and observations

                              on the merits of the application

10.09.1991                    Government's observations on the

                              merits

27.09.1991                    Applicants' observations on the merits

03.12.1991                    Applicants supplement their

                              submissions

07.12.1991                    Consideration of state of proceedings

04.04.1992                    Consideration of state of proceedings

10.09.1992                    Commission's decision to hold a

                              hearing on the merits of the

                              application

20.12.1992                    Hearing on the merits

13.02.1993                    Consideration of state of proceedings

04.05.1993                    Commission's deliberations on merits,

                              and on text of its Article 31 Report.

                              Final votes taken.

12.05.1993                    Adoption of Report