DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.A. NØRGAARD, JOINED BY MR. J.-C. SOYER

      I regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the

majority of the Commission that there has been a violation of

Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

      I note that the applicant, after being detained on remand for a

period of three years, one month and twenty seven days, was

provisionally released on 24 July 1992 on condition, inter alia, that

he would not leave Spanish territory and that, in breach of that

condition, he left Spain on 23 December 1992 and has not returned to

Spain to stand trial.

      Like the Commission, I accept that there was throughout the

applicant's detention on remand a risk that he would abscond if he was

released.  It has also been convincingly demonstrated that the

investigation was a complicated one and that a considerable time was

needed to bring it to an end.

      It is also understandable that a trial against more than

50 accused persons required careful and lengthy preparations.  It is

true that the applicant's case does not seem to have been particularly

complicated, and that question therefore arises whether he should have

been brought to trial separately at an earlier date.  However, I cannot

find it established that such a procedure would have been appropriate

and in conformity with a proper administration of justice.

      For these reasons, and notwithstanding the fact that the

applicant's detention on remand exceeded three years, I consider that

the length of the detention did not exceed a reasonable time within the

meaning of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

                                                        (Or. English)