PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. H. DANELIUS

      I have voted against the Commission's conclusion that there has

been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention, for the following

reasons.

      I accept that no criminal charge was involved in the present

case. However, the decision to return the aircraft against the payment

of £50,000 must be considered to have concerned the applicant company's

civil rights (cf. Application No. 12954/87, Raimondi v. Italy, Comm.

Report of 21 October 1992, paras. 113-115). The applicant company

cannot be considered to have acted voluntarily when it accepted to pay

this amount since the alternative with which it was faced was the much

more serious prospect of having the aircraft forfeited (cf. the

situation of constraint in the Deweer case, Eur. Court H.R., judgment

of 27 February 1980, Series A No. 35).

      The question which remains to be answered is therefore whether

the applicant company could have obtained a determination by a court

of whether or not the condition relating to the payment of £50,000 was

reasonable and appropriate. The determination of this question involves

the exercise of discretion and general legal appreciation rather than

considerations of a purely legal character. In these circumstances, I

cannot find it established, on the basis of the two court cases

referred to in paras. 25 and 26 of the Report, that judicial review

proceedings would have offered the applicant company a sufficient

remedy to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.

Moreover, no other judicial remedy would seem to have been available.

      For these reasons, I conclude that Article 6 of the Convention

has been violated in the present case.

                                                           (Or. Eng.)