DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE

      Unfortunately I am unable to agree with the majority of the

Commission and have voted against the finding of no violation of

Article 6 of the Convention.

      It seems to me that the applicant's obligation to pay his

lawyer's fees was finally decided through the decision by the Regional

Court.  The applicant accordingly then paid the amount decided by the

Court.

      During these proceedings no hearing was held at any stage as

required by Article 6 para. 1.  It seems that it is unusual to hear the

parties in such legal fee disputes.  I also observe that there is no

evidence in the present case that the applicant unequivocally waived

his right to a hearing.  Moreover, despite the apparent equality of

arms in the present case, in that neither party was heard by the court,

the extent of the discretion of the Regional Court in granting a

hearing at the request of one of the parties to the proceedings was

unclear.  Given the Regional Court's summary dismissal of the

applicant's case as being wholly unsubstantiated, it cannot be said

with any certainty that the applicant would have been granted a hearing

if he had asked for one.

      I do not agree with the majority that the deficiencies in the

proceedings before the Regional Court would be remedied through the

possibility for the applicant of instituting disciplinary proceedings

or proceedings before the ordinary courts.

      The aim of disciplinary proceedings is to sanction the particular

lawyer.  This is in my opinion a question quite different from what was

at stake for the applicant, namely the amount he was obliged to pay to

his former lawyer with a view to the quality of the particular service

received.  The test that would be applied in a disciplinary case is not

in any way identical to the test that would be applied in a civil

conflict concerning possible reduction of the bill presented by a

lawyer.

      Here this conflict was in fact settled by the Regional Court in

proceedings which did not seem in compliance with the requirements of

Article 6 as interpreted by the European Court and Commission of Human

Rights.

                              APPENDIX I

                      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date                                      Item

______________________________________________________________________

14 October 1988                        Introduction of the application

10 October 1989                        Registration of the application

Examination of the admissibility

12 December 1991                       Commission's decision to

                                       communicate the case and to

                                       invite the parties to submit

                                       their observations on

                                       admissibility and merits

6 January 1992                         Commission's decision to refer

                                       the application to the Second

                                       Chamber

13 March 1992                          Government's observations

10 June 1992                           Applicant's observations in

                                       reply

2 December 1992                        Commission's decision to

                                       declare the application

                                       admissible and to request

                                       additional information from the

                                       parties

Examination of the merits

19 January 1993                        Submission of additional

                                       information by the applicant

15 February 1993                       Submission of additional

                                       information by the Government

6 April 1993                           Consideration of the state of

                                       the proceedings

30 June 1993                           Commission's deliberation on

                                       the merits and decision to

                                       adjourn its examination.

11 January 1994                        Commission's deliberation on the

                                       merits and final vote.

19 January 1994                        Commission's adoption of the

                                       Report