DISSENTING OPINION OF MR S. TRECHSEL

I regret that I fully disagree with the majority of the Commission in its finding of a violation of Article 6 in the present case.

The system of which the applicant complains required him to declare his appeal before he was in possession of the judgment fully reasoned in writing. The applicant failed to appeal and I cannot detect any reasonable explanation for this omission.

In fact, by declaring his intention to appeal, the applicant did not assume any risk at all. This is the essential difference between this case and the one dealt with by the Court in its Hadjianastassiou v. Greece judgment of 16 December 1992 (Series A no. 252), where reasons had to be given for the appeal in cassation . Also, the applicant in the present case could later withdraw his appeal without even incurring any costs. There would also have been ample opportunity fully to present his arguments after he had been served with the finalised judgment.

Furthermore, the applicant fails to establish that he incurred a special risk due to the possibility of the public prosecutor lodging an appeal.

For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that there has been no violation of Article 6 in the present case.

I wish to add the following additional consideration: Everywhere in Europe courts seem to be overburdened with work. This sometimes leads to delays in violation of Article 6 of the Convention as to a reasonable time. The case law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights unfortunately show ample evidence of this. All efforts to render the administration of justice more economical without infringing upon the right to fair proceedings must therefore be welcomed. One such rationalisation may consist in accepting relatively summary motivations for judgments. The view of the majority runs counter to such efforts, which is an additional reason for me to find it regrettable.

(Or. English)