SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER JOINED BY JUDGE PETTITI

My remarks concerning paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment of today ’ s date in the Pudas case [1] also apply to paragraphs 28 and 30 of the judgment in the present case.

The reasons set forth in paragraphs 29 and 32 of the present judgment suffice to establish that "the instant case involved the ‘ determ ination’ of a ‘civil right’" [2] . Those in paragraph 32 furthermore suffice to establish, as far as necessary, that there was a dispute ("contestation") concerning that right.

[*]  Note by the registry: The case is numbered 18/1986/116/164.  The second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to the Court and the first figure its place on the list of cases referred in that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the case's order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the Court since its creation.

[1] Judgment of today, Series A no. 125-A, p. 21.  

[2] Paragraph 27 in fine of the judgment, p. 39 above.