CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA

(Translation)

1.   I concurred in the result but, with all the respect due to my learned brethren, I must state that paragraph 51 causes me great difficulty.

2.   The problem of legislatures with two or more chambers does not arise in the instant case, and the matter is not before the Court. In my view, we should confine ourselves to the case in issue and keep the question of two chambers for such time as it may arise in a case before the Court.

3.   At all events, the wording "or at least of one of its chambers if it has two or more" is inadequate and dangerous.

As it stands, it would allow of a system at variance with "the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature" and might even lead to a corporative, elitist or class system which did not respect democracy.

In my opinion, we should say "or at least of one of its chambers if it has two or more, on the two-fold condition that the majority of the membership of the legislature is elected and that the chamber or chambers whose members are not elected does or do not have greater powers than the chamber that is freely elected by secret ballot".

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 9/1985/95/143.  The second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to the Court and the first figure its place on the list of cases referred in that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the case's order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the Court since its creation.