CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA

                    JOINED BY MRS. J. LIDDY

        (regarding Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention)

     I agree with the majority of the Commission that there has been

no breach of Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention on the grounds that

the applicants were not "charged with a criminal offence" within the

meaning of that paragraph.

     It follows in my view that for the purposes of para. 1 of

Article 6 the proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to have

involved "the determination of a criminal charge" against the

applicants.  On the other hand, I consider that the proceedings did

involve a determination of the "civil rights and obligations" of the

applicants.  The purpose and effect of the proceedings was to determine

the liability of the applicants for the evaded taxes and fines due from

P. and to fix the amount of such liability up to the maximum value of

the applicants' share in P.'s estate.  As such, the proceedings not

only determined the civil obligations of the applicants but, by their

effect on the value of the applicants' inheritance, also determined

their rights which were of a "pecuniary" character.  The rights in

question were therefore in my view "civil rights", notwithstanding that

the dispute in question concerned the application of rules relating to

tax and to the imposition of fines for the evasion of tax (cf. Eur.

Court H.R., Éditions Périscope judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A

no. 234-B, p. 66, para. 40).

     The applicants were therefore in principle entitled to a public

hearing.  I agree with the majority of the Commission that the

applicants cannot be regarded as having waived their right to a

hearing.  I also agree that there were no other special features of the

case which would justify the refusal to hold such a hearing.  In

particular, the proceedings not only involved questions concerning the

determination and calculation of the taxes unpaid by P.; they also

involved the question whether P. had evaded the payment of taxes so as

to become liable to the payment of a penalty and, if so, the amount of

the penalty to be imposed.  Accordingly there has been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 in the present case.

                                                 (Or. English)