DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI

                             (Translation)

        I voted with the minority in favour of finding that there had

been no violation for the following reasons.

        The Court's reasoning, in particular in paragraph 39, seems to

me to be couched in terms that are too general with the risk that it

may be applied in other cases that are more or less similar, with no

account being taken of the individual nature of each

national legal order so far as proceedings in the Court of Cassation

and the role of that court's procureur général and avocats généraux are

concerned.

        Criminal and civil proceedings cannot be treated identically

where the domestic order makes special arrangements; similarly, it is

not possible to treat proceedings where one party (such as a

professional body) is opposed to an applicant who is a member of the

profession in the same way as other proceedings.

        In addition, in the context of disciplinary proceedings

following a decision of a professional body, there must be taken into

account, in each individual case, the special features of the

domestic procedural order at the level of the appellate court below the

Court of Cassation, namely the composition of the court and the role

of the parties and avocats généraux.

        Further, there is in my view a contradiction in the reasoning

in paragraph 39, which provides that the opinion of the

procureur général's department is intended to advise and influence the

Court of Cassation.  Yet, in the instant case, the judgment of the

Court of Cassation merely contains a reference to the fact that it was

delivered after the avocat général had made submissions, there being

nothing to suggest that he had argued in favour of dismissing the

applicant's appeals on points of law or, consequently, that he had

exerted any influence on the Court of Cassation that could be

considered an infringement of the applicant's right to an adversarial

hearing.

        With regard to the special nature of the procureur général's

department at the Court of Cassation in Belgium, I subscribe to the

observations of Judge Storme with reference to the separate opinions

in the Borgers and Vermeulen judgments.  I also note that the Court has

not reiterated the reasoning based on outward appearances or, in

paragraph 38, the formulas previously used in the Borgers and

Vermeulen judgments.

        It is true that in the present case the sole issue concerned

the fact that the applicant was unable to reply to the submissions of

the procureur général's department.

        The Court will no doubt have an opportunity to refine its

case-law when dealing with similar proceedings whilst remaining alert

to its international impact (particularly with respect to the role of

Advocates General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities)

and its effect on Court of Cassation proceedings in national systems.