JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SAJÓ AND KŪRIS

We agree with all points of the j udgment, except for the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court implicitly recogni s es that there is a causal link between the loss suffered (a loss of real opportunities – see para graph 66 of the judgment ) and the fact that applicants did not have the benefit of the guarantees of Article 6. In the case of the applicants Mr Maggioni and Mr Ribulotta , their claim was upheld by a court on the basis of the relevant Court of Cassation case-law at the time. In comparable circumstances the Grand Chamber found it appropriate to award in respect of pecuniary damage, on an equitable basis, the sums the applicants would have received had the legislation remained as it was before the passing of the relevant A ct (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, §§ 76 and 79, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII ; see also , among other authorities , Arnolin and Others v. France , nos. 20127/03, 31795/03, 35937/03, 2185/04, 4208/04, 12654/04, 15466/04, 15612/04, 27549/04, 27552/04, 27554/04, 27560/04, 27566/04, 27572/04, 27586/04, 27588/04, 27593/04, 27599/04, 27602/04, 27605/04, 27611/04, 27615/04, 27632/04, 34409/04 and 12176/05, § 87, 9 January 2007, and Agrati and Others v. Italy (just satisfaction), nos. 43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09 , §§ 14-16, 8 November 2012 ).

While in the present case there was only a judgment of the court of first instance in favour of the applicants, it is unreasonable to assume that the courts of appeal would have ruled differently, as there had been no departure from the Court of Cassation ’ s case-law . We conclude that the amount established by national judgments should have been awarded.

In view of the above logic we consider that it would be unfair to the other applicants to award less than the full, clearly established loss, even in the absence of a judgment , simply because they had the bad luck to have their cases delayed for longer than some of the other applicants. In fact, Mr Cataldo, just like Mr Maggioni , instituted judicial proceedings in 2006 but in the case of Mr Cataldo the judgment was delivered only in 2008, after the entry into force of the impugned law.

Finally, we would like to voice our concern about the case-law concerning the consideration of future pension entitlements. The case - law, as summari s ed in Maggio and Others v. Italy ( nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08 , § 80 , 31 May 2011 ) and confirmed in the present case , considers that given the many imponderables in evolving political and economic conditions that could affect future pension entitlements and calculations, an award related to future pensions would be largely hypothetical. Even if the pensions were not defined, as in the present case, such imponderables cannot amount to a conclusion that there is no clear loss, even within the logic of loss of real opportunities. Therefore one cannot conclude that no loss has been sustained . Moreover, in the present case, contrary to cases involving current contributors to a pension scheme, we are not dealing with future pension entitlements and it is unfair to impose imponderables exclusively on a specific group of pension recipients in the name of hypotheticals. In our view this matter merits the consideration of the Grand Chamber.