DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BERNHARDT

I am unable to follow the majority in this case, essentially for the same reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in the case of Ruiz Torija v. Spain . In the present case, the Spanish Supreme Court was hardly under the obligation to answer expressly a question which it had already answered on another occasion (see paragraphs 10, 11 and 28 of the judgment).

[*]  The case is numbered 46/1993/441/520.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9).  They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[*]  Note by the Registrar.  For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 303-B of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.