CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE BONELLO

1. I voted to award the applicant only EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage , solely in deference to the criteria recently established by the Grand Chamber of the Court in the cases of Scordino and Cocchiarella v. Italy (29 March 2006) in which deliberations I did not participate and with whose conclusions I respectfully disagree.

2. According to its long-established criteria, the Court would have awarded the applicant company EUR 7,500 had its case been decided in Strasbourg . Instead of applying the Strasbourg scale of compensation, the domestic cou rts fobbed the applicant Company off with EUR 240 – which represents a beggarly 3.2% of what the Strasbourg court would have awarded ( see § 60 ).

3. For having complied with the Convention ’ s requirement of exhausting domestic remedies before applying to the Strasbourg Court , the applicant now finds himself penalized by getting only about 45% of what would have been due to him according to the Court ’ s practice. The argument (used in Scordino and Cocchiarella ) that the sum obtainable in Strasbourg should anyway be curtailed because the applicant enjoyed the convenience of a domestic remedy, in the presen t case falls flat on its face. The so-called domestic ‘ remedy ’ worked out at only 3.2% of what he was entitled to, and the so-called ‘ convenience ’ consisted in having to undergo the burden of three sets of court proceedings instead of one.