Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF MESSINA v. ITALY (No. 2)PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BONELLO

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: September 28, 2000

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF MESSINA v. ITALY (No. 2)PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BONELLO

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: September 28, 2000

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BONELLO

(Translation)

I do not agree with the majority's conclusion that the finding of violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. I consider that such “non-redress” is inadequate whatever the court of justice concerned, and is in addition in contradiction with the terms of the Convention, as I have explained in detail in my partly dissenting opinion in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC] no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III).

[Note1] To be checked.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255