DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CREMONA

I am unable to agree with the majority of my colleagues in this case.

To be brief, I would say that here the domestic Court of Appeal was called upon to examine the case as to the facts and the law, making a full assessment of the applicant ’ s guilt or innocence. Both the facts and the application of the law to those facts were to my mind, with varying degrees of clarity, in dispute.

In the circumstances, the appellate court ’ s re-examination of the applicant ’ s conviction required a public hearing in order to comply with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. As this was not allowed, there was in my view a violation of that provision.

I would add that I also find it difficult, in the context of a fair trial, to distinguish, as the majority do in this case, between the minor and major character of an offence. For the persons concerned, whom this provision of the Convention seeks to protect, all cases have their importance.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WALSH, RUSSO, SPIELMANN , DE MEYER, LOIZOU AND BIGI

For the reasons stated in paragraphs 49 to 52 of the Commission ’ s report and summarised in paragraph 28 of the judgment, we believe that, in the present case, the appeal court ’ s re-examination of Mr Fejde ’ s conviction required a public hearing.

[*]  The case is numbered 36/1990/227/291.  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 amendments to the Rules of Court which came into force on 1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.

[1] Case no. 35/1990/226/290.

[2] As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11) to the Convention, which entered 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 212-C of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.