PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BORREGO BORREGO

The present dissenting opinion only concerns the amount of just satisfaction awarded under Article 41 of the Convention.

The majority has now decided to award almost 30,000 euros to the applicant ' s lawyer. The applicant had already been awarded 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the judgment adopted on 14 November 2006. In other words, by accepting the rectification request the Court now awards to the lawyer an amount which is fifteen times greater than the applicant ' s award.

I agree (I am lawyer myself) with the importance of a lawyer ' s work, which is evident in the present case. Nevertheless, is such a difference between the amounts awarded respectively to the applicant and to the lawyer consistent with a system of protection of the applicant ' s rights? I would like to recall that the problem raised in this case had originated in a court order requiring the applicant to pay off rent arrears at a cost to her of GBP 2.60 (EUR 3,84) per week.

In my opinion, there is something wrong with the discrepancy between the two amounts awarded. The applicant is at the origin of the case and is its raison d ' être , and the lawyer only became involved in it because the applicant had a problem.

The lack of a proportionate balance in this case is unacceptable to me, and, to my regret, I cannot agree with the majority.