JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES FOIGHEL AND PALM

1.      In relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), we agree

with the majority that there were various interferences with Mr

Phocas's full enjoyment of his property as a result of different kinds

of proceedings (paragraph 59).

        Like the Commission, we also find that the acts of the French

authorities and courts had made Mr Phocas's right of property unstable

and uncertain over a very long period.

        Such a situation is in principle incompatible with Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

2.      It is true that domestic law afforded a remedy - the

abandonment procedure (paragraph 36) - which in principle could to some

extent ensure protection of possessions.  But we disagree with our

colleagues that the failure of the domestic abandonment proceedings was

attributable to the applicant alone.

        Mr Phocas's first request to abandon his property was made on

27 May 1970 (paragraph 18).  But it was not until he renewed his

application on 13 May 1972 that the authorities reacted by inviting him

to a meeting said to have taken place on 26 January 1973

(paragraph 19).

        A further meeting took place on 29 May 1973 at the office of

the Prefect of Hérault.  What happened at this meeting is not clear,

but it seems to follow from Mr Phocas's letter of 2 June 1973 to the

Prefect that negotiations were still going on and that the Prefect

during the last meeting had made "a promise ... that the formalities

for purchasing [the applicant's] property ... would be carried out very

speedily" (paragraph 20).

        Moreover, on 7 November 1974, the département's Director of

Infrastructure wrote to the applicant making an offer to purchase

(paragraph 21).  Mr Phocas replied on 20 January 1975, asking for "a

proper assessment" (paragraph 22).  On 4 February 1975 the Director of

Infrastructure sent him a letter - confirmed on 16 May 1975 - stating

notably that he had "no discretion to alter offers" and that it was for

the applicant to apply to the expropriations judge to fix the

compensation due to him (paragraph 23).

        This conduct on the part of the authorities could reasonably

lead the applicant to believe that negotiations were continuing and

that a solution was imminent.  The failure of the domestic abandonment

proceedings was therefore not attributable to the applicant alone.

3.      Whatever the case may be, it took a further year and five

months after Mr Phocas's letter of 2 June 1973 for an offer of payment

to be made on 7 November 1974 (paragraph 21).

        It was thus four and a half years before Mr Phocas received a

concrete reply to his request of 27 May 1970.  This delay put him in

an awkward and unreasonable situation: either he had to accept this

offer or else he had to give up the abandonment as the three-year

time-limit had passed while he was waiting for the authorities to

answer his request.

        Against this background and taking the case as a whole, we

cannot accept that a fair balance was struck in relation to Mr Phocas.

We therefore hold that there has been a breach of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

4.      We further find that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention has been violated since the proceedings instituted on

8 January 1982 were not conducted within a reasonable time.