PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION

                           of Mrs. J. LIDDY

As to the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 to the Convention.

1.    I agree that Article 6 para. 1 was applicable to the proceedings

before the Administrative Court, for the reasons given in the Report.

2.    I consider also that Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings

before the Constitutional Court.  My understanding is that if the

applicant had been successful in his allegations before that Court that

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention had been violated, the Constitutional Court would have

had the power to quash the decision of the administrative authorities.

There was therefore a direct link between the subject-matter of the

proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the subject-matter of

the proceedings before the Administrative Court.

3.    In the case of Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain (judgment of 23 June 1993),

where there was a close link between the subject-matter of proceedings

before the Spanish Constitutional Court and the civil courts, the Court

found that Article 6 para. 1 applied to the constitutional proceedings.

Likewise, here, I consider that Article 6 para. 1 applied to the

proceedings before the Austrian Constitutional Court.

As to whether there has been a violation of the applicant's right to

have his case determined by a tribunal within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1.

4.    The effect of Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act,

providing that the Administrative Court must examine the contested

decision on the basis of the facts as accepted by the authority against

which the appeal is directed, is ameliorated but not nullified by

Section 42 of the Act, which enables the Administrative Court to quash

the contested decision as being unlawful due to procedural defects.

The Administrative Court does not have the full jurisdiction required

by Article 6 para. 1.  To find otherwise, notwithstanding the

limitation in Section 41, might have the effect in practice of limiting

an individual's right to a judicial assessment of the facts of a case

not only in civil proceedings, but also in the administrative criminal

proceedings known to Austrian law which can carry deprivation of

liberty as a sanction (cf. the Commission's decisions on admissibility

dated 10 May 1993 in Applications Nos. 15523/89, 15527/89, 15963/90,

16713/90, 16718/90 and 16841/90).  I consider that there has been a

violation of the applicant's right to have his case determined by a

tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1.

As to whether the absence of an oral hearing before the Administrative

Court violated Article 6 para. 1.

5.    The Court has held that the public character of court hearings

constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 para. 1.

A person may waive the entitlement to have his case heard in public.

"However, a waiver must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not

run counter to any important public interest" (HÃ¥kansson and Sturesson

judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171, para. 66).

6.    In the present case there was no unequivocal waiver.  On the

contrary the applicant's request for a hearing was refused by the

Administrative Court.  Accordingly, unless the Austrian reservation to

Article 6 is valid and applicable, there  has been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1.

7.    The Convention does not permit reservations of a general

character (Article 64 para.1).  The Court has held that by reservation

of a general character is meant in particular "a reservation couched

in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine

their exact meaning and scope" (Belilos Case, judgment of

29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, para. 55).

8,    To seek to understand the scope of the Austrian reservation it

is necessary to consult Article 90 of the Federal Constitutional Law,

which is referred to in the reservation.  Article 90 provides that

"Exceptions [to the principle of oral and public hearings] may be

prescribed by law".  To determine the exact scope of the reservation

other Contracting Parties and the organs of the Convention would need

the advice of a person qualified in Austrian law, who could ascertain

and advise as to all the exceptions prescribed by Austrian law at any

given time.  It is at the least highly questionable as to whether a

reservation which can only be understood after obtaining such advice

meets the requirement that it not be of a general character.

9.    What is beyond doubt, however, is that the exceptions prescribed

by Austrian law are not specified in the reservation.

Article 64 para. 2 of the Convention provides that any reservation

shall contain "a brief statement of the law concerned".  The Court has

held in the Belilos Case that this is not a purely formal requirement

but a condition of substance.  The reference to Article 90 of the

Federal Constitutional Law is insufficient because it does not enable

the other Contracting Parties and the Convention institutions to

identify "the law concerned", that is, in the instant case, the laws

which provide that in certain circumstances (at present unspecified),

hearings in civil and criminal proceedings need not be oral and in

public.  This reservation is quite different from the reservation to

Article 5 considered by the Court in the case of Chorherr (judgment of

25 August 1993).  There, the Court pointed out that a reference in that

reservation to the Federal Official Gazette made it possible for

everyone to identify the precise laws concerned and to obtain any

information about them, and provided a safeguard against any

interpretation which would unduly extend the field of application of

the reservation.

10.   I conclude that the reservation does not satisfy the requirements

of Article 64 para. 2 with the result that it is invalid.

11.   It follows that the absence of an oral hearing before the

Administrative Court violated Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

As to whether the absence of an oral hearing before the Constitutional

Court violated Article 6 para. 1.

12.   For the reasons given at paras. 2 and 3 I consider that Article

6 para. 1 was applicable to the proceedings before the Constitutional

Court.  Despite the applicant's request for a hearing before that

Court, no hearing was held.  There was no unequivocal waiver of the

right to a hearing.

13.   For the reasons given at paragraphs 7 to 10 above I consider that

the Austrian reservation to Article 6 is invalid and cannot therefore

be invoked in support of the contention that Austria was not bound to

observe the obligation in Article 6 para. 1 to provide a hearing.

14.   It follows that the absence of an oral hearing before the

Constitutional Court violated Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

                              APPENDIX I

                        HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date                        Item

_________________________________________________________________

11 May 1990           Introduction of the application

24 July 1990          Registration of the application

Examination of Admissibility

9 January 1991        Commission's deliberations, decision to invite

                      the Government to submit observations on the

                      admissibility and merits of the application and

                      decision to declare the application partially

                      inadmissible

15 April 1991         Government's observations

13 June 1991,         Applicant's observations in reply

21 August 1991

4 September 1991      Government's further observations

10 October 1991       Applicant's further observations in reply

15 May 1992           Commission's decision to invite the parties to

                      an oral hearing on the admissibility and merits

                      of the application

8 September 1992      Commission's hearing of the parties and decision

                      to declare the application admissible

Examination of the merits

26 October 1992       Decision on admissibility communicated to the

                      parties

9 January 1993        Commission's consideration of the state of

                      proceedings

8 May 1993            Commission's consideration of the state of the

                      proceedings

31 August 1993        Commission's deliberations on the merits and

                      final vote.

9 September 1993      Adoption of the Report