HUBER v. SWITZERLAND&-DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY&S

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: April 10, 1989

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: April 10, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

&-DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY&S

I consider that the course which the proceedings actually took

at domestic level in relation to the District Attorney's exercise of

his powers and consequently the facts as established in the present

Report provide an insufficient basis for distinguishing the present

case from the Schiesser case (Judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A

no. 34), particularly taking account of the considerations set out in

Mr. Martinez' dissenting opinion. Accordingly, I was unable to join

the majority and have voted for no violation of Article 5 para. 3 of

the Convention.

.IG

***

&-APPENDIX I&S

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

----------------------------------------------------------------------

27 February 1987 Introduction of the application

13 March 1987 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

7 October 1987 Commission's decision to invite

the Government to submit observations

on the admissibility and merits of the

application

18 December 1988 Government's observations

13 April 1988 Applicant's observations in reply

9 July 1988 Commission's decision to declare

the application partly admissible

Examination of the merits

6 October 1988 Government's supplementary observations

10 December 1988 Commission's consideration of the state

of proceedings

10 April 1989 Commission's deliberations on the merits

and final vote and adoption of the Report

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

HUBER v. SWITZERLAND&amp;-DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY&amp;S