SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. H. DANELIUS

         JOINED BY MM. C.A. NØRGAARD AND M. PELLONPÄÄ

     While I agree with the Commission in concluding that neither

Article 6 nor Article 13 of the Convention has been violated in the

present case, I base my conclusions in regard to these Articles on the

following considerations.

     When individuals choose to conduct certain activities through a

legal person, it follows that in some respects these individuals

transfer competence to act to the organs of that legal person, which

means that each individual can no longer act separately in these

respects. Thus, an individual who acquires shares in a company can be

considered thereby to have accepted that he must rely on the organs of

the company as regards the taking of measures to protect the economic

interests of the company, although such measures also indirectly affect

the property rights of the shareholders. The extent of such dependence

on the organs of the company may vary according to the applicable

domestic laws. However, it is a frequent feature of company laws that,

to a large extent, only the legal person through its competent organs,

and not the shareholders, has access to the courts in order to obtain

a determination of the civil rights of the company. Such a limitation

of the shareholders' access to the courts should be seen as a

consequence of the fact that, when becoming shareholders, the

individuals concerned agreed to act, as regards the affairs of the

company, through the organs of the company.

     For these reasons, I take the view that Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention has not been violated in the present case.

     I consider that the same reasoning applies, mutatis mutandis, to

the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, and I therefore find

no violation of that Article either.

                                                 (Or. English)

        PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING