partly dissenting OPINION OF JUDGE Foighel

I regret that I cannot agree with the majority view that the present judgment constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage.

The majority of the Court have given no reasons in paragraph 113 for declining to order that just satisfaction under Article 50 should take the form of financial compensation.

It cannot reasonably be said that the applicants did not suffer non-pecuniary damage.

By not awarding a sum of money as just satisfaction the Court diminishes the seriousness of the violations found and limits its ability to promote respect for the Convention.

[1] . This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.

[2] Notes by the Registrar

. There were originally two separate cases numbered 21/1997/805/1008 and 22/1997/806/1009. In each case, the first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[3] . Rules of Court A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol. They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[4] 1. Note by the Registrar . For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the registry.

[1] 1. Paragraph 98 of the judgment.

[2] 2. Paragraph 20 of the Commission’s report in the case of Mr Slimane-Kaïd. In his memorial, he said that an inquiry had already been started by the Versailles Regional Criminal Investigation Department on 21 July 1984 (see p. 6, § 23 of that memorial).

[3] 3. Paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Commission’s report in the case of Mr Slimane-Kaïd.

[4] 4. Paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Commission’s report in the case of Mrs Reinhardt.

[5] 5. Paragraphs 13 and 92 of the judgment.

[6] 6. Paragraphs 19 and 91 of the judgment.

[7] 7. Paragraph 93 of the judgment.

[8] 8. Ibid. See also the Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 24, § 46, and the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73.

[9] 9. See the judgments in Delcourt v. Belgium of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 15 ‑ 18, §§ 29–38; Borgers v. Belgium of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, § 24; Vermeulen v. Belgium of 20 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, p. 233, § 30; and Van Orshoven v. Belgium of 25 June 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 1051, § 38.

[10] 10. See the Borgers judgment, cited above, p. 32, § 28, and the Vermeulen judgment cited above, p. 234, § 34.

[11] 11. See the judgments in Borgers, cited above, p. 32, § 27; Vermeulen cited above, p. 234, § 33; and Van Orshoven cited above, p. 1051, § 41; see also paragraphs 79 and 106 of the judgment.

[12] 12. See paragraphs 73 and 105 of the judgment.

[13] 13. Their role is scarcely any different from that of the Advocates General at the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities or of the Government Commissioners (“ commissaires du gouvernement ”) at the Conseil d’Etat in France. It is above all vital not to be misled by the titles of certain functions: in that connection, it is worth noting that at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities the office of Advocate General is exercised by judges of that court, appointed by the president.

[14] 14. See the Delcourt judgment cited above, p. 19, § 38.

[15] 15. See, mutatis mutandis , the following judgments: Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 28, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 574, § 46, as well as Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30, and Nortier v. the Netherlands, 24 August 1993, Series A no. 267, p. 15, § 33.

[16] 16. See paragraph 103 of the judgment.

[17] 17. See the Borgers judgment cited above, p. 32, §§ 26 and 29.

[18] 18. See the Vermeulen judgment cited above, p. 234, § 33.

[19] 19. See the Borgers judgment cited above, p. 32, § 29.

[20] 20. Must one also say that at Westminster there is no fair hearing in the House of Lords either, because the judges – the Law Lords – are also legislators and the President, the Lord Chancellor, is not only the President of that Court but also, at the same time, a member of Her Majesty’s Government?

[21] 21. See the Delcourt judgment cited above, p. 17, § 31.

[22] 22. See the Borgers judgment cited above, pp. 31–32, § 26.

[23] 23. See the Delcourt judgment cited above, p. 18, § 33.

[24] 24. See the Bulut v. Austria judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, pp. 352 and 359–60, §§ 14 and 47–50.

[25] 25. See the Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 18 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, pp. 105 and 108–09, §§ 10 and 24–32.