CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER

(Translation)

I voted with the Chamber, which decided unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 6 para . 1 (art. 6-1) even though, in my view, the applicant had no "right" and there could not therefore have been a "contestation" (dispute) within the meaning of that Article (art. 6-1). What the applicant asked t he Constitutional Court to do - and this was the only possibility open to him - was to declare a statutory provision void, and only if that court had found that the provision in issue was unconstitutional could he have claimed that he had a right within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6).

In this connection I would also cite the statement in paragraph 46 of the judgment, which in my view is too general, namely that proceedings come within the scope of Article 6 para . 1 (art. 6-1), even where they are conducted before a constitutional court, if their outcome is decisive for civil rights and obligations (see my separate opinion in the case of Ruiz- Mateos v. Spain, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 32).

As to the rest, I entirely agree with the reasoning in the judgment as regards compliance with Article 6 para . 1 (art. 6-1) in the instant case.

[1] The cas e is numbered 53/1996/672/858. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

[3] For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.