JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUD GES ROZAKIS, SPIELMANN AND MALINVERNI

1. As in the case of Sakhnovskiy v. Russia , (no. 21272/03, 5 February 2009 ), we voted in favour of finding a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

2. In the present case the majority follows the approach adopted in Sakhnovsksi y , finding that the second appeal hearing did not provide appropriate redress for the shortcomings of the first appeal hearing and holding that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) on account of the fact that both appeal hearings were held in the applicant ’ s absence.

3. In our view however the applicant was no longer a victim of the shortcomings of the first appeal hearing, because by quashing the appeal decision and sending the case for a fresh appeal examination the authorities had acknowledged and provided appropriate redress for the shortcomings of the first appeal hearing.

4. Our reasoning therefore differs from the majority ’ s approach and we would like to refer in this respect to our joint concurring opinion in Sakhnovskiy and in particular to paragraph 5 of that opinion.