DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA

(Translation)

1.   In my view there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention:

(a) The Housing and Tenancy Court is composed of lawyers, generally judges, and lay assessors. All its members are appointed by the Government for a term of office of three years (see paragraph 22 of the judgment).

The Court is always presided over by a lawyer (see paragraph 23) and, if there is no majority, he has a casting vote.

The lay assessors, who are appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the Swedish Federation of Property Owners and the National Tenants ’ Union , represent the whole interest group (see paragraph 24). They sit in a personal capacity and not as representatives of their associations (see paragraph 19).

The proceedings are written but a hearing may be held if it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation (see paragraph 23) and the judgments are delivered in public. The court informed Mr Langborger that it considered it possible to give its decision without holding a hearing (see paragraph 15).

(b) It is common practice to provide for the participation of lay judges having wide experience and extensive knowledge of the field in which the dispute arises.

In this case the decisions could not go against the views of the professional judges, so that the independence and impartiality of the court were guaranteed.

It was open to Mr Langborger to request a public hearing.

2.   Since I consider that there has been no violation, I cannot vote for the award in this judgment of a sum in respect of costs and expenses.

I would, however, have agreed with point 4 of the operative provisions had I voted in favour of finding a violation.