DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GARLICKI JOINED BY JUDGE DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON

To our regret, we are unable to agree with the rejection of the Government ' s request for revision in this case.

We can accept the majority ' s position that the Government could have consulted the land register when the case was pending before the Court. It follows that the very existence of the easement contracts cannot be regarded as “a new circumstance” within the meaning of Rule 80.

However, while the existence of those contracts was not known to the Government, it was quite well known to the applicants, who, nonetheless, decided not to share this information with the Court. In effect, the Court was misled in the process of calculating the damages.

We believe that the applicants ' “improper conduct” (to use the language of the majority decision – se e paragraph 24 of the judgment) should not remai n without reaction. In fact, it should be interpreted as a new circumstance that could not have been known to the Court when adopting its judgment.

We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment should be revised and the da mages recalculated accordingly.

[1] Approximately EUR 50