CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr N. BRATZA

While I see force in the argument advanced in the Dissenting Opinion of Mr Alkema that the Convention should not be interpreted in such a way as to impose on a small island community such as Guernsey elaborate constitutional structures similar to those which exist in large States, I am unable to accept that this can justify a departure from the requirement in Article 6 that a tribunal should be independent and impartial and, in particular, that it should present an appearance of independence (see eg. the Bryan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, p. 15, para. 37).

In my view these requirements were not met for the reasons given in the opinion of the majority of the Commission. I wish, however, to make clear that my view is confined to cases such as the present, where the proceedings in which the Bailiff sits in a judicial capacity relate to the acts or decisions of the Executive - in this case, the refusal of the IDC to grant permission for a change of use. Different considerations would in my view apply where the Bailiff sat in cases involving a dispute between private parties, in which there was no lack of the requisite appearance of independence.