JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SIR VINCENT EVANS AND GERSING ON THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 (P1-1)

1. We regret that we are unable to share the opinion of the majority of the Court on this issue.

2. It is our view that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is not applicable in the present case. No doubt the effect of the 1972 Act and of the Board of Appeal ’ s decisions under it was to reduce the scope of the applicants ’ professional activities, but we find it difficult to conclude that this involved an interference with "the peaceful enjoyment of [their] possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 (P1-1).

3. The freedom to use the title "accountant" which the applicants had prior to the entry into force of the regulatory provisions of the 1972 Act did not, in our opinion, constitute a property right protected by that Article. Nor were the measures taken directed at controlling the use of property but at regulating the exercise of a professional activity.

4. As to the alleged loss of clientèle resulting from the measures complained of, "goodwill" may indeed for certain purposes be an element of the economic value of a person ’ s business and thus an integral part of his property. However, we do not consider that the professional expectations allegedly lost by the applicants should be regarded as part of their "possessions", or that the measures taken should be regarded as an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their "possessions", within the meaning of Article 1 (P1-1). A wide variety of legislative and other measures can affect incidentally the scope, profitability and therefore the "goodwill" value of a business. We take the view that the Contracting States are entitled to adopt measures of the kind in question in the present case without being bound by the restrictions embodied in Article 1 (P1-1). To regard such measures as an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions requiring justification within the terms of that Article (P1-1) gives it, in our opinion, an interpretation going beyond its object and purpose.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 7/1984/79/123-126. The second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to the Court and the first figure its place on the list of cases referred in that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the case's order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the Court since its creation.