DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE, MM. A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK,

      J.-C. SOYER, H. DANELIUS, M.A. NOWICKI AND J. MUCHA

     We agree with the majority that the interference with the

applicant's rights under Article 10 para. 1 of the Convention was

"prescribed by law" and aimed at maintaining "the authority and

impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2

of the Convention.

     However, we disagree as to whether the measure was "necessary in

a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the

Convention.

     It is true that in the present case the Federal Court found in

its decision of 21 April 1994 that lawyers had a substantial freedom

to criticise the judiciary as long as the criticism was duly put

forward in the procedural forms.  The Court noted in particular that

lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the judiciary,

and that the applicant could have been expected to obtain a reply by

first filing a regular remedy with the statutory appeal organs (see

above, para. 32).

     However, the applicant did pursue his criticism in the procedural

forms, in particular by filing an appeal with the Court of Appeal of

the Canton of Lucerne (see above, para. 27).  Nevertheless, in our

opinion it is legitimate for a lawyer to employ various means to put

forward his client's case, and the applicant did not act unlawfully

when deciding to hold a press conference.

     The applicant, a former member of parliament, believed that he

had come across a problem of general importance.  With his press

conference, he aimed at bringing about a public debate on, and possibly

a speedy reaction to, the situation at the Hochdorf District Office,

even while criminal proceedings were pending against his client.

     In our opinion, it cannot be said that the applicant's concerns

about the situation at the Hochdorf District Office were unreasonable.

Upon his appeal, one of his complaints was confirmed by the Court of

Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne on 30 November 1992 (see above,

para. 27).  Moreover, the "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten" reported on

its own accord about other substantial charges which had previously

been levelled against one of the District Officers concerned (see

above, para. 20).

     The language employed by the applicant at the press conference,

although polemic, did not in our view go beyond the limits of

acceptable criticism.  Thus, according to the newspaper "Luzerner

Neueste Nachrichten", he complained that he would "no longer let

(himself) be fooled by these gentlemen" and that he "(had) had enough".

He claimed that the District Registrars had breached the Code of

Criminal Procedure, demanding that they immediately step down and a

neutral commission examine the matter (see above, paras. 19 et seq.).

Another newspaper, the "Luzerner Zeitung", stated that the applicant

"(had accused) the Hochdorf District Office of breaching the law" (see

above, para. 22).

     While it is true that Article 10 of the Convention leaves a

margin of appreciation to Contracting States in such circumstances (see

Eur. Court HR, Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A

no. 103, p. 25, para. 39), we consider that freedom of expression is

of special importance for a free debate on matters of public

importance, such as the operation of the administration of justice (see

Eur. Court HR, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom judgment of

27 October 1978, Series A no. 30, p. 40, para. 65).

     In our opinion, the disciplinary measure complained of was not

proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and, accordingly, was not

"necessary in a democratic society ... for maintaining the authority

and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10

para. 2 of the Convention.

     We conclude, therefore, that in the present case there has been

a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.