DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA

(Translation)

1.   I voted against finding a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the European Convention on Human Rights because I considered that this provision was not applicable.

2.   The right in question was not a civil right, but the right to carry on an activity - serving alcoholic drinks in a restaurant - whose exercise is subject to the grant by the authorities of a licence, which is not transferable (see paragraph 17 of the judgment) and which may be revoked. If the manager of the premises does not provide the necessary guarantees or if he fails to satisfy the conditions laid down, the licence may lawfully be withdrawn from him (see paragraphs 27 and 28).

The grounds on which a licence may be revoked fall exclusively within the administrative sphere and relate to the achievement of social policy objectives, so that disputes arising from such a measure are not covered by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 4/1988/148/202.  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 a derogation from the usual practice (Rules 26 and 27 para. 5   of the Rules of Court), the French text was not available until August 1989, but it too is authentic.