SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MARTENS

1. Since I fully maintain the views expounded in my dissenting opinion in the Cossey case, I acclaim the Court ’ s decision, but cannot subscribe to all its arguments. I do not think it necessary to say more.

2. I would have been even more content if the Court had accepted the Commission ’ s plea to abandon the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp doctrine. On this issue I also maintain my former opinion (see my separate opinion in the Brozicek case). I am glad to note that several of my colleagues now share that opinion.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 57/1990/248/319. 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: as amended by Protocol No. 8 (P8), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: opinion of the Commission in the case of Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium , Series B no. 36, p. 26, para. 52.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 232-C of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.