CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

(Translation)

Any question concerning the determination of a right must be able to be examined and decided in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. This is what any person who has a legitimate interest in the solution of such a question is entitled to require.

In the present case the applicants, as persons whose property had been expropriated, could undoubtedly claim to have such an interest in regard to the expropriation.

They were therefore entitled to have the case relating to the expropriation heard in compliance with the above-mentioned principles, both in the Constitutional Court , whose rulings were decisive in the matter, and in the other courts before which the case came.

This was so in particular with regard to the length of the proceedings and their fairness.

In these two respects the applicants ’ fundamental rights were violated. Firstly, a reasonable time was exceeded [*] . Secondly, the applicants were not authorised to submit their observations to the Constitutional Court , whereas the Counsel for the State and the Attorney General ’ s departmen t were allowed to lodge theirs [*]  .

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BAKA

I fully subscribe to the view of the majority that there has been a breach as far as the fairness of the procedure is concerned in the present case. I also consider that because of the very special circumstances of the expropriation, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is applicable to these Constitutional Court proceedings, which have a direct effect on the outcome of the civil proceedings.

On the other hand I have a different opinion concerning the length of the proceedings. In the present case, I have come to the conclusion that the matter was relatively complex, its political background having necessarily contributed to the prolongation of the procedure.

I believe that the examination of constitutionality - which could legitimately be regarded here as a part of the civil proceedings - has to be assessed in the light of the special characteristics inherent in these kinds of constitutional court procedures. The particular features of such a system, such as the court ’ s unique organisational framework, its relatively small size, the breadth of its jurisdiction and the possible political implications of its constitutional decisions, make for a lengthier procedure. They undoubtedly did so here.

I must also point out that the conduct of the applicants significantly contributed to delaying the proceedings.

Accordingly in my view, there has been no violation of the "reasonable time" requirement of the Convention.

[*]  The case is numbered 2/1992/347/420.  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 262 of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.

[*]  See paragraphs 38 to 53 of the judgment.

[*]   See paragraphs 16 to 18, 22, 65 and 67 of the judgment.