PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SPANO

The only Convention issue worth examining in this case pertains to the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. I therefore concur with the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1. However, as the majority ’ s only legally tenable argument for finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that the seizure of the applicant ’ s laptop for “ five or more years ... constituted an individual and excessive burden ” (see paragraph 36 of the judgment ), I fail to see how this argument can be considered separate and distinct from th at which already form s the basis for finding a violation of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the facts in issue do not justify finding a violation of the fundamental right to property protected by an international convention on human rights.