PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. H. DANELIUS

              JOINED BY MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON, J.-C. SOYER,

                 Mrs. G.H. THUNE AND Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

      In my opinion there has been in the present case a violation of

the applicant's right under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention to be

presumed innocent, for the following reasons.

      The applicant was convicted of tax evasion by the Regional Court,

but the proceedings were pursued, upon appeal, before the Court of

Appeal, which finally discontinued the proceedings on the ground that

the criminal charge against the applicant had not been determined

within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention. This means that the question of whether or not the

applicant was guilty of the offences with which he was charged was left

unanswered and that the applicant was entitled, under Article 6 para. 2

of the Convention, to be presumed innocent.

      When subsequently rejecting a compensation claim submitted by the

applicant, the Court of Appeal stated that it appeared from the file

that certain companies, under the management or orders of the

applicant, had committed a number of fiscal offences and that neither

the documents concerning the investigation nor the examination of the

request for compensation created any doubt about the correctness of the

applicant's conviction by the Regional Court. This statement cannot be

interpreted as only referring to a remaining suspicion against the

applicant. It must be read as meaning that, in the Court of Appeal's

view, the applicant's conviction in first instance would have been

upheld on appeal if the appeal proceedings had not been discontinued.

Such an evaluation of what would have been the outcome of the appeal

proceedings cannot be considered to be consistent with the applicant's

right under Article 6 para. 2 to be presumed innocent in respect of

offences of which he had not been convicted by a final judgment.

                              APPENDIX I

                      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date                        Item

_________________________________________________________________

29 June 1990                Introduction of the application

17 October 1990             Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

2 September 1992            Commission's decision to communicate the

                            application to the respondent Government

                            and to invite them to submit observations

                            on admissibility and merits of the

                            application

15 January 1993             Government's observations

22 May 1993                 Applicant's observations in reply

8 January 1993              Commission's decision to declare the

                            application partly admissible and partly

                            inadmissible

Examination of the merits

21 December 1993            Decision on admissibility transmitted to

                            parties. Invitation to parties to submit

                            further observations on the merits

28 January 1994             Government's statement that they do not

                            wish to submit further observations

5 March 1994                Applicant's further observations

17 March 1994               Applicant's further observations

13 April 1994               Government's reply to applicant's

                            submissions of 17 March 1994

5 May 1994                  Applicant's further observations

6 September 1994            Commission's consideration of state of

                            proceedings

12 October 1994             Commission's deliberations on the merits,

                            final vote and adoption of the Report