DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA

(Translation)

1.   I do not think that Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention applied in the instant case. H had no right to be restored to the roll of the Ordre des avocats - Article 471 of the Judicial Code is quite clear on this point:

"No avocat who has been disbarred may be entered on a roll of the Ordre or on a list of pupil avocats until ten years have elapsed from the date on which the decision to strike off became final and unless exception al circumstances warrant it [*] .

No such entry shall be permitted without the reasoned consent of the Council of the Ordre¹ to which the avocat belonged or, as the case may be, the leave of the relevant disciplinary appeal authority if the disbarment was ordered by it.

No appeal shall lie against a refusal to restore to the roll  . "

The requirement of exceptional justifying circumstances, the need for the consent of the Council of the Ordre and the lack of any right of appeal against a refusal to restore to the roll show that the applicant does not have a right to readmission, which is in the discretion of the Council of the Ordre . H had merely a "right of petition": he could and can apply for readmission. Such a right is not in any way a civil right; in the present case it is of a procedural nature and is not protected by Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention.

2.   Having reached the conclusion that there has not been a violation of Article 6 (art. 6), I do not consider it logical - as I said in my dissenting opinion annexed to the Sanchez- Reisse judgment of 21 October 1986 (Series A no. 107, p. 26) - that the applicant should, in the same judgment, be awarded just satisfaction on the basis of facts which do not, in my view, contravene the Convention.

3.   On the other hand, I have voted for reimbursement of costs and expenses - assessed on an equitable basis - because they do not flow directly from a breach of the Convention but follow from the Court ’ s judgment.

Such reimbursement does not represent satisfaction for damage but relates to expenses necessarily incurred in securing a favourable decision from the European Court of Human Rights.