CONCURR ING OPINION OF JUDGE THOMASSEN

I agree with the majority that in the present case Artic le 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been breached .

However, my conclusion is based on different groun ds.

In a situation of limited financial re sources and in the interest of upholding a fair social insurance system, a State must be free to change the conditions fo r entitlement to a disability pension. In this respect, the majority ’ s approach does not seem to be different from mine.

The majority attach much weight to the discrimina tory character of the measure. The y note in this context that the applicant lost his disability pension completely, whereas 85% of the disability pensioners continued to receive disability benefits.

I have difficult y in following this rea s oning since, in my view, the fact that only 15% of the pensioners lost their whole pension cannot in itself lead to the conclusion that the measure was tainted with unjustified differential treatment. The applicant lost his pension aft er his disability was assessed anew by a physician who found him fit for work in general. This means that his situation cannot be compared wi th that of other disability pensioner s whose loss of capacity for work was considered to be more serious and who therefore continued to receiv e a full or limited disability pension.

Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that the application of the new rules affected the applicant in such a harsh manner that he s uffered an excessive burden as a result of the changes to the social security system. It is true that he earned a salary from full - time employment and that he retained his full right to receive a retirement pension. However, after a physician in 1997 had established the percentage of his disability under the new rules, the applicant lost the pension which he had been receiving over a period of twenty years immediately after that asses s ment. It is this lack of an appropriate transitional period, which could have allowed the applicant to adapt his situation to the new circumstances, which amounts in my view to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No . 1.