DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOUROU-VIKSTROM

I am unable to follow the majority in finding that there has been a violation of Article 6 §1, for the following reasons:

The initial police procedure which led to the refusal to renew the firearms licence is based on a personality report. This procedure, which is intended to assess the potential danger posed by a given individual, is primarily based on witness statements. However, it is important that the witnesses are protected, something that is indeed guaranteed by the legislation. The applicant was informed from the outset that there existed a report indicating that he had been under the influence of alcohol on certain occasions. The report was submitted for evaluation by the judges of the Administrative Court, who considered that the information contained in it was such as to confirm the administrative authorities ’ decision when refusing to renew the licence. The applicant chose not to request that the witnesses who had testified against him be heard by the administrative courts. Nor did he produce a medical certificate attesting to his alcohol consumption. Thus, he did not provide pertinent information which would have enabled adversarial proceedings to take place, save at the belated stage of the constitutional complaint.

Having regard to the need to reconcile protection of the witnesses and the search for judicial truth, it thus appears that the proceedings were conducted with sufficient safeguards and protected the applicant ’ s interests within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.