DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. G. JÖRUNDSSON

              JOINED BY MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ and B. MARXER

      Contrary to the majority of the Commission, I am of the opinion

that there has been no violation of the applicant's rights under

Article 6 of the Convention in the present case.

      I recall that the principle of equality of arms is only one

feature of a wider concept of a fair trial and implies that each party

shall have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the Court

under conditions which do not place him at a substantial disadvantage

vis-à-vis his opponent (Eur. Court H.R., Dombo Beheer B. V. judgment

of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 33; No. 7450/76,

Dec. 28.2.77, D.R. 9 p. 110).

      The applicant submits that the Cantonal Court by filing

observations supported the opposing party and thus became itself a

party to the proceedings.

      I recall that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention requires in

criminal cases that the accused receives observations made by the

prosecution or the procurator general in proceedings before courts of

appeal or cassation irrespective of their contents (see M.B. v.

Austria, Comm. Report 8.9.94, para. 56).

      However, in the present case the observations in question were

submitted in civil proceedings.  In this respect I recall that an

attorney general acting before a supreme court, may under certain

circumstances, in particular when he recommends the dismissal of an

appeal, be considered objectively speaking as opposing party to an

appellant in civil proceedings (see Lobo Machado v. Portugal, Comm.

Report 19.5.94, para. 53, at present pending before the Court).

      In the present case the observations in question were submitted

by a court, which as such was bound to respect the principle of

impartiality.  As it is the task of a court in civil proceedings to

find against one of the litigant parties, the fact that the Cantonal

Court did find against the applicant cannot make it a party to the

appeal proceedings, nor the fact that it filed observations, in

accordance with domestic law, with the Federal Court in which it relied

on its own judgment.

      In this respect, it should also be observed that during the

proceedings before the Federal Court the observations of the Cantonal

Court were transmitted to neither party.  Moreover, the applicant has

not shown that the observations in any way supplemented the facts or

the legal reasoning already contained in the judgment.  We here note

that in its judgment of 19 June 1990 the Cantonal Court had dealt at

length with the applicant's performance as managing director.  The

Cantonal Court's comments of 22 September 1990 only summarised its

previous judgment.

      I therefore consider that, in the proceedings before the Federal

Court, no problem arises as to the equality of arms between the

applicant and the defendant company.  Moreover, the Federal Court's

failure to transmit the Cantonal Court's comments to the parties did

not otherwise render the proceedings unfair.

                                                         (Or. French)