PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE JELIĆ

1. I agree that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, for the reasons stated in the judgment.

2. However, I regret that I cannot agree with the majority regarding the conclusion on Article 41 of the Convention.

3. In my view, in cases where the domestic proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the applicant did not benefit from a fair trial, whereas the prospect of reopening or reviewing the case is uncertain in the concrete circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award at least a symbolic sum in just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, rather than concluding that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

4. Bearing in mind the particularities of the case, notably the “age” of the application before the Court, the fact that the applicant had already been released under the Amnesty Act, as well as the dilemma regarding how realistic the prospect is of reopening or reviewing the case (although it is understood that Georgian law allows for a retrial), I find that - for this specific case - it would have been appropriate to adopt a similar approach as in the cases of Vorotnikova v. Latvia (no. 68188/13) and Talabér v. Hungary (no. 37376/05) with regard to Article 41.