PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LEMMENS

I voted with the majority in finding a violation of A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention and no violation of Article 10. However, I disagreed with my colleagues as regards the application of A rticle 41 of the Convention.

In the present case, the only violation found by the Court concerned the composition of the bench of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation which dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law . The violation related, more specifically, to only one of the ten judges on the bench .

The Court did not take the view that the Court of Cassation ’ s decision was open to criticism in terms of its content , having regard to the Convention. On the contrary , it dismissed the Article 10 complaint .

In those circumstances, I am of the view that the finding of a violation of A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention would in itself have constituted sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant .

[1] . Nikula v. Finland , no. 31611/96 , § 54, ECHR 2002-II.

[2] . See, mutatis mutandis , Kudeshkina v. Russia , no. 29492/05, § 9 5 , 26 February 2009.

[3] . Mor v. France , no. 28198/09, § 59, 15 December 2011.

[4] . Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01 , § 175, ECHR 2005 ‑ XIII.

[5] . Casadevall J. “ L ’ avocat et la liberté de l ’ expression ” , i n: Freedom of expression: essays in honour of Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights , Josep Casadevall ... [et al.] (eds.), Strasbourg : Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights; Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP), 2012 - pp. 235-244 .

[6] . De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium , 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of judgments and decisions 1997-I.