DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. E. BUSUTTIL, A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK,

   J.-C. SOYER, L. LOUCAIDES, B. MARXER, I. BÉKÉS, J. MUCHA,

         G. RESS, A. PERENIC, C. BÎRSAN and K. HERNDL

     We have voted against the finding of no violation of Article 6

para. 2 of the Convention for the following reasons.

     In our opinion even where no formal accusation is raised,

Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention will be breached where a criminal

sanction, implying guilt, is imposed on a person without it having been

duly proved that that person had committed a criminal offence.

     In the present case, we note that on 18 August 1990 the Tax

Administration ordered the applicants to pay the fine for the tax

evasion committed by L. as well as the taxes which L. had withheld.

The Tax Administration thereby relied on the fact that, after L.'s

death in 1985, the applicants had become heirs to L.'s estate.

     It is true that according to Section 130 para. 1 of the Ordinance

on Direct Federal Taxes, the applicants assumed the obligation to pay

the fine and the outstanding taxes, not on account of their own guilt,

but because they had become liable therefor as heirs.  Indeed, the

applicants only became liable up to the amount which they had actually

inherited.  Moreover, fines imposed on the basis of Section 130 para. 1

are not entered into the criminal register.

     We nevertheless observe that the measure imposed on the

applicants was a fine.  According to the Swiss Penal Code, a fine

serves the purpose of punishing a criminal offence (see above,

para. 27) and therefore implies guilt.  A confirmation of the criminal

nature of the fine can further be seen in the present case, on the one

hand, in that the fine was imposed on account of the criminal offence

of tax evasion; and, on the other, in that the deceased, L., was

considered guilty after his death of having committed this offence.

     The applicants were, therefore, victims of a criminal sanction.

The fine, however, as well as its amount, were determined, not on the

basis of the applicants' conduct or of their guilt, but of the conduct

and guilt of another person, namely the deceased L.

     Contrary to Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention, therefore, the

applicants were punished for a criminal offence which was not duly

proved during a trial and which indeed another person had committed.

     Consequently we consider that there has been a violation of

Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention.

                                                 (Or. English)