8.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Saintes (Charente-Maritime). He is a winegrower. 9.  On 19 May 1993 plans for improving a major road on the edge of the Saintes urban area were declared to be in the public interest. Completion of this operation required the expropriation of various plots of land, including twenty-one hectares belonging to the applicant. The expropriation liability order was issued on 5 September 1994. 10.  On 12 September 1994 the expropriations judge for the département of Charente-Maritime issued an expropriation order giving rise to a transfer of ownership.
On 28 September 1994, in the absence of an agreement between the applicant and the State as the expropriating authority (represented by Mr H., an inspector from the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department) on the amount of compensation to be paid, the latter applied to the expropriations judge. In an order of the same day the expropriations judge for the département of Charente-Maritime set 4 November 1994 as the date for the site inspection and stated that the public hearing would be held immediately afterwards.
On 3 November 1994 Mr P., Deputy Director of the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department, filed submissions in his capacity as Government Commissioner. The applicant’s lawyer then requested an adjournment because of the lateness of these submissions. The hearing was accordingly fixed for 18 November 1994.
In a judgment of 9 December 1994, having heard the applicant, Mr H., the State’s representative in the proceedings, and Mr P., the Government Commissioner, the expropriations judge assessed the compensation payable by the State at 1,441,517 French francs (FRF). 11.  On 5 January 1995 the applicant appealed against this decison and filed a memorial with the Expropriations Division of the Poitiers Court of Appeal, in which he assessed the amount of compensation due at FRF 3,763,698.
On 13 April 1995 the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department filed a memorial in reply, signed by Mr H., in which it asked that the decision be upheld; a sheet of paper entitled “Study of the local property market”, listing thirteen contracts of sale and one judgment, was appended. On 24 April 1995 the applicant’s representative wrote to the signee of the memorial, requesting that he send a full copy of the contracts and decisions cited. In a letter of 18 July 1995 the Deputy Director of the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department, Mr P., refused to produce the documents on the ground that tax officials were bound by a duty of professional confidentiality.
On 17 August 1995 the applicant’s counsel replied to the Deputy Director of the Revenue Department as follows:
“... it is regrettable that almost three months were required to send a brief reply to a standard request for production of documents, dated 24 April 1995, even though the case is due to be heard on 22 September. This aside, you are mistaken in failing to distinguish between your roles as Director of the Revenue Department and as representative of the expropriating authority in legal proceedings brought in application of the Decree of 11 December 1973 – Article R. 179 of the Code of State Property.
In this latter capacity, you are obliged to respect the fundamental principle of adversarial proceedings and the provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure which impose a basic obligation on the parties to produce the evidence to which they refer. This principle also applies when you are acting in your capacity as Government Commissioner, which for the moment poses no further difficulties. I might add that had your memorial contained, as a minimum, sufficient indications to enable me to order the contracts from the land registry, I would have refrained from asking you to produce these documents.
I am therefore obliged to ask the court ... to order discovery of the documents which you refer to, unless the court prefers purely and simply to discount this evidence, which would mean that it would rule only on the basis of my own terms of comparison ...”
On 4 September 1995 Mr P., standing in for the Director of the Vienne Revenue Department in his capacity as Government Commissioner, lodged submissions in support of a cross-appeal with a view to the hearing before the Expropriations Division of the Court of Appeal (initially set for 22 September 1995, the hearing was subsequently postponed at the applicant’s request until 24 May 1996); he assessed the compensation in issue at FRF 1,396,267.
The applicant filed a memorial in reply, referring in particular to an infringement of his right to a fair trial in the following terms: 
“...
In the present case, the Director of the Revenue Department representing the expropriating authority and the Director of the Revenue Department acting as Government Commissioner are one and the same person, even if, for form’s sake, the Director of the Revenue Department is represented by two separate individuals, which is a fiction, since, as we have seen, the same person replied to the expropriated party’s counsel on behalf of the expropriating authority and also signed the Government’s Commissioner’s submissions.
It follows that the Director of the Revenue Department may take part in the present proceedings only in his capacity as the State’s representative or in his capacity as Government Commissioner, and may not combine the two roles. Otherwise, the parties do not enjoy a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ...”
According to the Government, the registry of the Expropriations Division informed the applicant and the Director of the Revenue Department within the Property Department, in letters dated 9 May 1996, of further grounds of appeal lodged on the same day by the Government Commissioner. 12.  In a judgment of 21 June 1996 the Expropriations Division of the Poitiers Court of Appeal established the compensation amount at FRF 1,542,867. It held that the applicant’s request that the court dismiss the intervention by the Director of the Revenue Department in his capacity as Government Commissioner was ill-founded. The judgment stated:
“... The [applicant’s] criticisms of the Director of the Revenue Department’s activities and of the dual nature of his functions are unfounded because:
(i)  The Director of the Revenue Department’s twofold status as Government Commissioner and ... representative of the expropriating authority does not amount to a defect; despite the strangeness of this situation, there is nothing to prevent the Director of the Revenue Department representing the expropriating authority and simultaneously assuming the functions of Government Commissioner.
(ii)  The Director of the Revenue Department’s joint role as Government Commissioner and representative of the expropriating authority does not deny the expropriated party a fair trial provided that the Government Commissioner does not participate in the decision-making process within the expropriations court.
(iii)  In any event, in the specific case of this appeal, two Directors of Revenue Departments intervened, namely the Director of the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department, representing the State, and the Director of the Vienne Revenue Department as the Government Commissioner (see the appointments of substitutes dated 25 August 1995 and 2 May 1996 in the case file).
Consequently, the [applicant’s] claims on the basis of Article 6 of the Convention ... must be rejected.
...
As regards the [applicant’s] request that the State provide him with a copy of the contracts and judgments referred to as terms of comparison, and in the light of the adversarial principle, it seems initially that this request is admissible since it is not ‘a new ground which was not raised at first instance’ but new claims intended to secure dismissal of the other party’s claims (Article 654 of the New Code of Civil Procedure);
However, this request [by the applicant] ... must be rejected since the information provided is sufficient to allow identification of the property sold and the price agreed upon together with free discussion of their value as evidence;
...” 13.  The applicant appealed on points of law, alleging in particular that there had been a violation of his right to a fair trial. He submitted that it was not necessary for a party to participate in the decision-making process for its intervention to be considered a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and complained that the Government Commissioner had been the last to speak, after the expropriated party, and that the latter had had no opportunity to reply. The applicant also complained that the Court of Appeal had dismissed his request for production of copies of the terms of comparison cited by the Government Commissioner.
On 8 April 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed this appeal on the following grounds:
“... Firstly, the judgment correctly accepts that, since Article 6 of the Convention  ... is not applicable, in that the Government Commissioner does not take part in the Expropriations Division’s decision-making process, it is not necessary to find his intervention inadmissible.
Secondly, there is no text prohibiting the parties from replying to the submissions made by the Government Commissioner at the hearing. 
...
The Court of Appeal justified its decision in law ... by accepting in the exercise of its unfettered discretion that the information provided had been sufficient to enable identification of the property sold and the price agreed upon together with free discussion of their value as evidence. 
...”