DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON, JOINED BY JUDGE MIFSUD BONNICI

In this case the respondent State failed to pay the applicant a sum of money on time. Since the rate of statutory interest was lower than the rate of i nflation, she suffered a loss. Inflation is and has been a serious problem in many countries and governments view the fight against inflation as a major part of their economic policy. Rules on human rights are not an effect ive instrument in this battle. The general impact of inflation means that it affects economic life as a whole and the repercussions on individuals, even if frequently serious, are rarely - or at least not in this case, in my opinion - individual and specific. I find that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is not applicable.

[1] The case is numbered 60/1996/6 79/869. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Prot ocol (P9). They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[3] Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons t his annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.