CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KJØLBRO

1. I would like to clarify the reasons why I voted for finding no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2 . Some two and a half years after the allocation of the plot of the land, the authorities discovered that a mistake had been made. O nce the error was discovered, the authorities took the initiative to rectify the mistake. However, as the applicant objected to the rectification, the initiation of court proceedings was rendered necessary.

3. The court proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction were concluded within two years . Thus, the court proceedings to correct the mistake were initiated promptly and completed without undue delay.

4. Furthermore, some two years after the final decision in the court proceedings, the applicant was allocated a new plot of land. Thus, the mistake made by the authorities was redressed and the applicant received the plot of land he was entitled to, that is, the land that had belonged to his father.

5. The authorities cannot be blamed for not having corrected the mistake earlier, as they could not take the initiative to allocate another plot of land to the applicant as long as he objected to the rectification of the original allocation of land and the court proceedings were still pending.

6. The applicant cannot argue that he suffered a pecuniary loss on account of the lower market value of the plot of land that had belonged to his father compared with the market value of the plot of land which had been allocated to him by mistake.

7. Furthermore, as regards the applicant ’ s claim that he was not afforded just satisfaction at domestic level, it should be noted that he did not seek any compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage as a result of the mistake made by the authorities, either in the annulment proceedings or in separate court proceedings.

8. Therefore, having regard in particular to the factors mentioned, I agree that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.