CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MALINVERNI

In paragraph 86, the Court reiterates that “ ... a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences. If the national law does not allow – or allows only partial – reparation to be made, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, §§ 32-33, ECHR 2000-XI). ”

In this connection the Court notes that “ ... under section 428a of the Civil Procedure Act ... an applicant may file a petition for reopening of the civil proceedings in respect of which the Court has found a violation of the Convention. ” Given the nature of the applicant ' s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and the reasons for which it has found a violation of that Article, the Court considers that “ ... in the present case the most appropriate way of repairing the consequences of that violation is to reopen the proceedings complained of. ”

For reasons I have explained on many occasions, either alone or together with other judges, in particular Judge Spielmann, [1] I would very much have liked th is principle , on account of its importance, to have been reflected in the operative part of the judgment .

That requirement appears to me to be all the more necessary in the present case in vi ew of the Court ' s finding that “a s it follows that the domestic law allows such reparation to be made, the Court considers that there is no call to award the applicant any sum in respect of pecuniary damage .. . ”

[1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia ( no. 41461/02 , 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia ( no. 6945/04 , 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece ( no. 6789/06 , 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia ( no. 25904/06 , 18 February 2010) ; and Prežec v. Croatia ( no. 48185/07 , 15 October 2009). See also my concurring opinion joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and Popović in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010 ) , as well as the concurring opinon of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ( [ GC ] , no. 36391/02 , ECHR 2008 -... ). See also my concurring opinion in Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010).