DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. S. TRECHSEL

      I regret that in the present case I cannot share the view of the

majority that there has been a violation of the applicant's rights

under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

      It is uncontested that the judge was not bound by the assessment

of the facts by the Provincial Executive.  Unfortunately, the judge

committed an error in interpreting the domestic law.  However, the

Commission has always held that it is not competent to rectify errors

made by a court in applying domestic law.  By finding a violation of

Article 6 in the present case, the Commission in my view acts as a

fourth instance.

      No issue arises under Article 13 as alleged violations of

Article 6 do not give rise to a remedy before a national authority. In

fact, and in accordance with Article 6, only a higher court could

examine whether a judicial organ acted in violation of the Convention.

However, no right to appeal is guaranteed by the Convention in civil

matters.  Article 13 does therefore not apply in the present case.