JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S TULKENS, ZUPANČIČ, ZIEMELE AND KALAYDJIEVA

(Translation)

We cannot agree with the majority ' s conclusions in relation to point 6 of the operative provisions, to the effect there h as been no violation of Article 13 concerning the right to an effective remedy.

One of the crucial issues in terms of Article 13 of the Convention is the fact that the applicants were unable to join the criminal proceedings as civil parties because the investigating judge discontinued the case. They were thereby deprived of the support of the prosecuting authorities in seeking to establish the facts and obtain the evidence.

To contend in that regard, as the judgment does, that “ there was nothing to prevent the applicants from bringing a civil action for compensation either before or in parallel with the criminal proceedings ” (see paragraph 337 of the judgment) strikes us as not merely theoretical but also illusory, since in any event the Grand Chamber considers the entire policing operatio n to have been perfectly lawful.

[1] Several extracts from the investigating judge’s order are cited extensively in paragraphs 94 ‑ 116 of the Chamber judgment.