CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MALINVERNI

(Translation)

In paragraph 127 the judgment states that “ as regards the findings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the Court ... reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of the provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested ” .

For reasons I have explained on many occasions, either alone or together with other judges, in particular Judge Spielmann, [1] I would very much have liked th is principle , on account of its importance, to have been reflected in the operative part of the judgment .

[1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia ( no. 41461/02 , 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia ( no. 6945/04 , 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece ( no. 6789/06 , 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia ( no. 25904/06 , 18 February 2010) ; and Prežec v. Croatia ( no. 48185/07 , 15 October 2009). See also my concurring opinion joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and Popović in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010 ) , as well as the concurring opinon of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ( [ GC ] , no. 36391/02 , ECHR 2008 -... ).