DISSENTING OPINION  of Mrs. J. Liddy

      The majority opinion in this case is based upon the case of

Zumtobel v. Austria (Comm. Report 30.6.90) in which the Commission came

to the conclusion that the Administrative Court had full jurisdiction,

as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

      I did not participate in that case myself, but have had the

benefit of reading the dissenting opinion annexed to the Report of

30 June 1992.  I agree with it and consider that 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 that 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).  This in turn would serve as an illustration of Judge

Matscher's concern, expressed in his separate opinion in the case of

Ruiz Mateos v. Spain (Judgment of 23 June 1993), that the extension of

the applicability of Article 6 results in the limitation of the

substance of the procedural guarantees contained therein in a way which

is scarcely compatible with the aim of the provision.

      Having accepted, as I do the applicability of Article 6 in this

case, I am compelled to the conclusion that Section 41 deprives the

Administrative Court of full jurisdiction to establish the relevant

facts and that there has, accordingly, been a violation of the

applicants' right to have their case determined by a tribunal within

the meaning of Article 6 para. 1.

                              APPENDIX I

                        HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date                             Item

_________________________________________________________________

8 April 1990                     Introduction of the application

8 May 1990                       Registration of the application

Examination of Admissibility

15 October 1991                  Commission's deliberations and

                                 decision to invite the Government to

                                 submit observations on the

                                 admissibility and merits of the

                                 application

7 February 1992                  Government's observations

4 June 1992                      Applicant's observations in reply

1 December 1992                  Decision to declare the application

                                 admissible

Examination of the merits

18 December 1992                 Decision on admissibility

                                 communicated to the parties

3 April 1993                     Commission's consideration of the

                                 state of proceedings

31 August 1993                   Commission's deliberations on the

                                 merits, final vote and adoption of

                                 the Report