PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR C.L. ROZAKIS

     I have voted for a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

However, I consider that there has also been an independent violation

of Article 9 of the Convention, because the reason why the applicant

was subjected to surveillance was his religious beliefs.

     Although surveillance always interferes with the private life of

an individual, I consider that a separate issue arises when the aim of

such surveillance is to undermine a value independently protected by

another provision of the Convention. For example, when somebody is

subjected to surveillance because of his political beliefs an issue

would arise under Article 10 of the Convention, which protects the

right to hold opinions, in addition to Article 8, which protects the

right to respect for one' private life; while when somebody is

subjected to surveillance because he engages in professional espionage,

only Article 8 of the Convention would be at stake.

     In the circumstances of the case, it was clear that the applicant

was subjected to surveillance because he was a Jehovah's Witness, i.e.

because of his religion. Freedom of religion is a valued independently

protected by the Convention. I, therefore, consider that there was an

interference with Article 9 of the Convention, in addition to its

Article 8.

     The reasons why I have concluded that Article 9 has been violated

are those set out in the partly dissenting opinion of Mr L. Loucaides.

                                                 (Or. English)