PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GYULUMYAN

I agree with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, but I regret that I am not able to fully share its decision on the just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

I consider that the sum awarded in the present case for non-pecuniary damage is not appropriate to the violation found and does not take into account the circumstances of the case.

The Court has awarded the applicant the same amount that was proposed by the Government in their unilateral declaration. However, in rejecting the Government ' s request to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37, the Court in paragraph 39 acknowledges that “the unilateral declaration only addresses part of the applicant ' s complaint under Article 5 of the Convention, namely the duration of the applicant ' s pre-placement detention, and not the remaining aspects of his complaint, namely the lawfulness under Article 5 of the Convention of his detention after he had served the prison sentence imposed on him.”

In the light of the decision adopted by the majority, I have difficulty understanding why the Chamber did not accept the Government ' s unilateral declaration.