SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYE R (concerning prior restraint), JOINED BY JUDGES PETTITI, RUSSO, FOIGHEL AND BIGI

I concur in the result, but I cannot agree with the Court ’ s reasoning on the subject of prior restraint: my reasons are those stated in my opinion concerning the Observer and Guardian case [*] .

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER (concerning domestic remedies), JOINED BY JUDGE PETTITI

For the reasons stated in my separate opinion concerning the Observer and Guardian case [*] , I cannot subscribe to the third sub-paragraph of paragraph 61 of the present judgment.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS

(Translation)

The observations contained in my s eparate opinion in the Observer and Guardian case [*] apply equally to paragraph 61 of the present judgment.

[*]  Notes by the Registrar

The case is numbered 50/1990/24 1/312.  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.

[*]   The amended Rules of Co urt which entered into force on 1 April 1989 are applicable to the present case.

[*]

[*]    Note by the Registrar

Case no. 51/1990/242/313

[*]     Note by the Registrar

As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]      Note by the Registrar

For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 217 of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

[*]  Series A no. 216, p. 46.

[*]  Series A no. 216, p. 47.

[*]  Series A no. 216, p. 48.