JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES RUSSO AND PALM,

            JOINED IN RESPECT OF PARAGRAPH 3 BY JUDGE BIGI

                             (Translation)

        Unlike the majority, we voted in favour of finding that there

had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as

regards the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 9 February 1979

and 8 January 1982.

        In the first set of proceedings Mr Phocas sought to have

quashed the decision whereby the mayor of Castelnau-le-Lez had refused

his last application for planning permission.  The fact that the case

had become pointless for the applicant owing to the commencement of

expropriation proceedings cannot, in our view, justify on its own a

duration of four years and three months, including three years and one

month before the Conseil d'Etat alone.

        The second set of proceedings was undeniably complex to some

degree as it raised the issue of the State's liability, and the main

delay was no doubt to be ascribed to the applicant.  Nevertheless, the

Conseil d'Etat, to which Mr Phocas applied on 11 August 1986, did not

deliver its judgment until 25 May 1990.  And while, as the Court notes,

"it does not appear from the evidence ... that Mr Phocas made any

special effort to speed up the proceedings", the same evidence does not

disclose any justification for that delay of nearly four years.