SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. M. PELLONPÄÄ

      I share the conclusions of the Commission but would like to add

the following.

      This case concerns disputes between the applicant, a retired

public servant of a parish of the Evangelical-Lutheran State Church of

Finland, and his former employer. As the European Court of Human Rights

has stated, "disputes relating to the recruitment, employment and

retirement of public servants are as a general rule outside the scope

of Article 6 para. 1" of the Convention (Francesco Lombardo v. Italy

judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-B, p. 26, para. 17).

I subscribe to this interpretation and have held a critical attitude

towards certain decisions in which a majority of the Commission has,

in my view, extended the scope of Article 6 para. 1 beyond the limits

indicated, for example, by the above-mentioned Lombardo judgment (see

my dissenting opinions in F.N. v. France; Comm. Report of

17 October 1995, and Huber v. France; Comm. Report of 15 October 1996).

      As the present case discloses features of a dispute relating to

public service, I consider it appropriate to explain why I nevertheless

accept the conclusion of the Commission also insofar as concerns the

applicability of Article 6, although I found this provision not to be

applicable in the French cases. A major distinguishing feature in the

present case is the fact that a dispute of a clearly - and

predominantly - pecuniary nature was among the issues before the

Cathedral Chapter and the Supreme Administrative Court (see para. 20

et. seq. of the Report). This alone is sufficient to bring the case

within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (cf. Editions Périscope v. France

judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 66, para. 40). I also

note that the question of the applicability of Article 6 was not in

dispute between the parties (see para. 41 of the Report).