CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. M. PELLONPÄÄ

     I have voted for the finding of a violation on all the three

points at issue.  Insofar as the question of "a fair hearing before a

tribunal" is concerned my reasons for this finding, however, differ

from those adopted in paras. 69-73 of the Report.

     The opinion of the Commission appears to proceed from the view

that the relevant requirements of Article 6 para. 1 apply in the same

way regardless of whether one is concerned with a "criminal charge" or

with the "determination of civil rights and obligations".

     The principle of "equality of arms" is certainly not confined to

criminal proceedings.  There may, however, be differences between

"criminal" and "civil" cases as to the concrete application of the

principle.  As the Court has stated, "[t]he requirements inherent in

the concept of 'fair hearing' are not necessarily the same in cases

concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations as they

are in cases concerning the determination of a criminal charge" (Dombo

Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands judgment, loc. cit., p. 19, para. 32).

It is possible, for example, that in a civil case the submission by the

Senior Public Prosecutor to the Court of a statement comparable to the

one at issue in the Bulut case (see paras. 71 and 73 of the present

Report), without the other party being able to comment on it, would not

be sufficient for the finding of a violation of Article 6, although in

a criminal case such a conduct would be regarded as inherently unjust.

It is recalled that in the Bulut case the Procurator General's Office

in its brief note merely stated that the applicant's plea of nullity

should be rejected according to the relevant provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (see Bulut v. Austria judgment, loc. cit.,

para. 14).

     However, in the present case, which concerns the determination

of civil rights, the observations by the Senior Public Prosecutor's

Office were much more lengthy and also more substantive than those at

issue in the Bulut case.  The principle of equality of arms, in the

sense of a fair balance between the parties, would have required an

opportunity for the applicant to comment thereon.  Therefore I concur

with the conclusion that Article 6 para. 1 had been violated also in

this respect.

                                                 (Or. English)