DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK

1. In my view, the respondent State has observed its obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the instant case. As a result, I have voted against finding a violation of that provision and I have explained my approach in detail in the dissenting opinion appended to the judgment on the merits in Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary (no. 21623/13, 16 October 2018). In these circumstances, I do not see sufficient reasons to award compensation for the material damage alleged by the applicant companies.

2. In my dissenting opinion, I drew attention to a certain number of features of the textbook market in Hungary. This market was not only a so-called “broken market” with a captive clientele, but the available evidence also showed the formation of regional monopolies or oligopolies. The applicant companies had profited from these market distortions in the past. When determining the award to be made in respect of material damage, it is necessary to take into account, inter alia , undue advantages obtained in previous years. The majority overlook this important aspect of the case.