Tokens: 22
.
In
consequence
,
even
assuming
that
Article
6.1
(
art
.
6
-
1
)
of
the
Convention
involves
an
obligation
to
afford
access
to
the
courts
,
the
present
case
does
not
,
in
my
view
,
fall
under
the
head
of
a
denial
of
access
contrary
to
that
provision
.
It
is
not
an
Article
6.1(art
.
6
-
1
)
case
at
all
,
but
a
case
of
interference
with
correspondence
contrary
to
Article
8
(
art
.
8)
;
and
the
whole
argument
about
the
effect
of
Article
6.1
(
art
.
6
-
1
)
is
misconceived
;
for
,
access
not
having
been
denied
,
there
is
no
room
for
the
application
of
that
Article
(
art
.
6
-
1
)
.
Logically
therefore
,
this
part
of
the
case
must
,
for
me
,
and
so
far
as
its
actual
ratio
decidendi
is
concerned
,
end
at
this
point
:
but
,
because
the
question
of
whether
Article
6.1
(
art
.
6
-
1
)
is
to
be
understood
as
comprising
a
right
of
access
to
the
courts
involves
an
issue
of
treaty
interpretation
that
is
of
fundamental
importance
,
not
only
in
itself
,
but
also
as
opening
windows
on
wider
vistas
of
principle
,
philosophy
and
attitude
,
I
feel
it
incumbent
on
me
to
state
my
views
about
it
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O