PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR CASADEVALL joined by judges ZUPANČIČ AND PANŢÎRU

1. I voted with the majority in favour of finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings. However, I do not share the majority's opinion on the applicant's complaint that it was denied a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.

2. In assessing the impartiality issue from an objective viewpoint (there was no suggestion of subjective bias), the Court had to apply the principle it has established and consistently followed that “even appearances may be of a certain importance” or, in other words, “justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done”. It was precisely from that angle that the instant case had to be examined.

3. I am able to accept that, taken individually and objectively 1 , the incidents which occurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts were not so serious as to be capable of compromising the impartiality of a judge or a court.

On the other hand, when all these factors are added together, one can understand the applicants' legitimate fears and conclude that they did not have a fair hearing. It must also be noted that, although their action was dismissed at first instance, the applicants succeeded before the Athens Court of Appeal; a great deal was at stake for the parties to the dispute; the case was of substantial interest to the local shipping community since there were a number of similar cases relating to shipping credits 2 ; and Citibank had publicly announced its intention to withdraw from the Greek market if the Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's decision 3 . Although the length of the proceedings itself constituted a breach of Article 6, it was plainly a direct consequence of the other incidents – “errors” or “procedural defects”, according to the Commission 4 – which occurred throughout the proceedings such that the applicants no longer had the confidence which courts should inspire in the public.

_______________

1 . Summary : Six-months' delay in deciding to hold a rehearing, the court having failed to reach a decision after the hearing of 11 December 1992. Decision taken by a judge who was not a member of the Fourth Chamber but was now the President of the Third Chamber. 198 cases were considered after the hearing of the applicant's case (before the departure of the retiring judge) and the decisions in them were delivered before the end of the year.

Change of rapporteur before the final hearing, despite the fact that the former rapporteur was the only member of the Chamber to have sat on the case in both the previous compositions.

2 . Paragraph 25 of the Commission's report.

3 . Paragraph 38 of the judgment .

4 . Paragraph 50 of the Commission's report.

In my opinion, the Government have not provided any satisfactory explanation justifying the number of incidents in the instant case.

4. Overall, the incidents and the surrounding circumstances were, to my mind, sufficient for the applicant's fears as to the impartiality of the fourth Chamber of the Athens Court of Cassation to be considered to have been objectively justified.