CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON, JOINED BY MRS. BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT AND MR. MATSCHER

Mr. Van der Mussele can, in my opinion, properly complain of an interference by public authorities with his right of property, but only as regards the non-reimbursement of his expenses. In this connection, it is material that he was forced to incur the expenditure in question as a result of a legal duty imposed on him by the State. In my opinion, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is thus applicable in regard to this point.

Nevertheless, I find no violation of the right to "the peaceful enjoyment of [one ’ s] possessions" as guaranteed by the first sentence of the first paragraph. I have two reasons for this conclusion. Firstly, the relevant amounts, whilst not meriting the description of "derisory" bestowed on them by the Government, were not exorbitant. Secondly, the applicant was working as a pupil with a view to qualifying as an avocat. He must have been acquainted with the pupillage system before he entered the profession. Whilst the pupillage system doubtless presented for him disadvantages as well as advantages, in the present context it must be looked at as a whole. In my opinion, the disadvantages did not outweigh the advantages to such a degree that it is possible to find a breach. I have accordingly voted for non-violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

[*]  Note by the registry: In the version of the Rules applicable when proceedings were instituted.  A revised version of the Rules entered into force on 1 January 1983 , but only in respect of cases referred to the Court after that date.