JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S GYULUMYAN, MYJER AND LÓPEZ GUERRA

Like in the Kormo š v. Slovakia case (judgment of 8 November 2011), we voted in this case for a finding of no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

We have no difficulty whatsoever with the line of reasoning as laid down in paragraphs 47-53 (recapitulation of the relevant principles) and 54-59 (application of the relevant principles to the present case). However, we do not fully agree with paragraphs 60-67 as regards the victim status of the applicant. Indeed, the Constitutional Court explicitly acknowledged a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. It then awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 1,470 in just satisfaction.

In our opinion this level of just satisfaction was not manifestly inadequate or unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. That the acceptable amount at the national level may be lower than the compensation usually awarded by the Court in similar cases has to do with the fact that there is a clear difference between a final resolution of the matter at the national level by the appropriate authority – through the express acknowledgment that a violation has taken place and the awarding of appropriate and sufficient redress – and the situation in which it is the Court which must decide on the issue in the absence of any acknowledgment of a violation by the S tate (see also paragraph 139 of the Grand Chamber judgment of 29 March 2006 in the case of Cocchiarella v. Italy (no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006 V)).