CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE FURA-SANDSTRÖM

The Court found a violation of Article 6 paragraph 3 taken together with Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect of the proceedings of both 7 and 9 April 2003, since the applicant did not have a fair hearing, in particular on account of not being afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence (paragraph 66). While accepting this approach, I would have preferred to examine the complaints relating to the lack of legal assistance separately. The applicant was allegedly not asked whether she wanted to have a lawyer (paragraph 62). For the same reasons as expressed in my partly dissenting opinion in Galstyan v Armenia, to which I refer, I find that there has been a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 taken together with Article 6 paragraph 3 (c) in this respect.