JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES MAKARCZYK

AND TÃœRMEN

We share the Court’s conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the non-communication to the applicant of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s observations to the Court of Cassation.

As far as the applicant’s complaint that he was deprived of his right to an oral hearing on his compensation claim is concerned, we would have preferred the Court to examine this complaint with a view to reaching the conclusion that in the circumstances there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 for the following reasons.

It is true that in line with the case-law of the Court, in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a “public hearing” under Article 6 § 1 entails an entitlement to an “oral hearing” unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing (see the Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2) judgment of 19 February 1998 , Reports 1998-I, p. 168, § 46).

We note that in the instant case the only point which required a determination was the quantum of damages to which the applicant was entitled in respect of the period spent in detention. The applicant did not dispute either the length of his detention or the basis used for the calculation of damages. Furthermore, the applicant has not adduced any exceptional circumstances to the effect that the domestic courts should have held an oral hearing on the merits of the applicant’s claim. Given the limited nature of the issues to be determined, the applicant’s case could properly be dealt with on the basis of a written procedure.

In fact, in the above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson case, the Court stated in paragraph 49 of its judgment that “(...) the Court does not find on the evidence before it that the applicant’s submissions to the Supreme Administrative Court were capable of raising any issues of fact or of law pertaining to his building rights which were of such a nature as to require an oral hearing for their disposition. On the contrary, given the limited nature of the issues to be determined by it, the Supreme Administrative Court, although it acted as the first and only judicial instance in the case, was dispensed from its normal obligation under Article 6 § 1 to hold an oral hearing. Accordingly, there has been no violation of this provision.”

We must also take into account the functioning of the compensation scheme contained in Law no. 466. The scheme was intended to provide for a speedy and effective determination of compensation claims on the basis of the case file and an initial judicial assessment of the merits of a claim. It has not been disputed that an oral hearing could have been held if there existed obvious public interest considerations which warranted one. However, where only private interest considerations exist, it is understandable that the national authorities should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy. Systematically holding hearings could be an obstacle to the speedy determination of the statutory compensation scheme such as the one at issue and could ultimately prevent compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).

For these reasons, we conclude that in the circumstances at issue there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 by reason of the failure to hold an oral hearing in the applicant’s case.