PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE,

                MM. J. MUCHA, P. LORENZEN AND K. HERNDL

      In view of the conclusion arrived at in para. 56 that there has

been a violation of article 8 of the Convention, the majority of the

Commission have taken the view that it is unnecessary to examine

separately the complaint under Article 12.  We do not share this view.

We find that in the present case there is no violation of Article 12

for the following reasons.

      We would recall that the applicant has been living for some time

in the Netherlands, without any expressed intention of returning to the

United Kingdom.  Neither has she expressed any intention that she would

return to the United Kingdom after marriage or seek to be married in

the United Kingdom. We note that there is, on the view of both parties,

a possibility that, if the applicant is regarded as domiciled in the

Netherlands, a marriage validly contracted there would be recognised

by the courts under English law. In these circumstances, we find that

the applicant has not established that she is currently in a position

where the essence of her right to marry under Article 12 has been

substantially impaired by the legal situation pertaining in the United

Kingdom.

                                                        (or. English)