JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON AND PALM

We agree with the majority of the Chamber that Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention is applicable in this case and that there has been an interference, which was prescribed by law and had a legitimate aim.

However, with regard to the necessity, we agree with what is said in paragraphs 54-65 of the Commission ’ s report. Accordingly we find that there has been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 8/1993/403/481.  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.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 285-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.