CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

My reasons for deciding that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention was applicable in the present case are less complex than th ose expounded in the judgment [1] .

The applicant had raised "a matter relati ng to the determination of" [2] his property rights, as affected by construction and planning regulations and by the implementation thereof.

That is enough for me [3] , the more since the "right of property is without dou bt a ‘ civil right ’ " [4] .

We had not to worry whether the alleged right could, or could not, "be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be re cognised under domestic law" [5] , nor whether "the dispute" was, or wa s not, "genuine and serious" [6] . These questions had, if arising, to be decided at the national level. Under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention we just have to see whether the alleged right could, or could not, be determined, at that level, in accordance with the principles recognised in that provision and, if it could, whether it wa s, or was not, so determined [7] .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: This case is numbered 18/1987/141/195.  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.

[1] Paras . 66-74 of the judgment.

[2] See H v. Belgium , judgment of 30 November 1987 , Series A no. 127-B, p. 31, para. 38.

[3] See further part I of my separate opinion in H v. Belgium , (ibid.,  pp. 48-49).

[4] Sporrong and Lönnroth , judgment of 23 September 1982 , Series A no. 52, p. 29, para. 79.  See also Ringeisen , judgment of 16 July 1971 , Series A no. 13, p. 39, para. 94.

[5] Para . 66 of the judgment.

[6] Para . 67 of the judgment.

[7] See further the separate opinion of Judge Lagergren in Ashingdane , Series A no. 93, p. 27, the separate opinion of six judges in W v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 121, p. 39, my separate opinion in Pudas , Series A no. 125-A, p. 21, and part I, paras . 2 and 3, of my separate opinion in H v. Belgium , Series A no. 127-B, loc. cit.