CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE G. BONELLO

1. I voted to award the applicant only EUR 4500 in respect of non-pecuniary damages, 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 EUR 10,300 had his case been decided in Strasbourg . Instead of applying the Strasbourg scale of compensation, the domestic courts fobbed the applicant off with EUR 240 – which represents a beggarly 2.3% of what the Strasbourg C ourt would ha ve awarded (see § 6 0 ).

3. For having complied with the Convention ’ s requirement of exhausting domestic remedies before applying to the Strasbourg Court , the applicant now finds hims elf 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 present case falls flat on its fa ce. The so-called domestic ‘ remedy ’ worked out at only 2.3% 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.