PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ANTONOVYCH

I follow the Chamber ’ s reasoning on all of the substantive points. But I cannot agree that there is no causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged (paragraph 50). The violation of Article 6 § 3 (b) which has been found in this case because the applicant, despite his requests, was not provided with a copy of the Court of Appeal ’ s judgment when he was preparing his appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court provides, from our point of view, a clear causal link with the pecuniary damage alleged (paragraph 48). I cannot also agree with the language in paragraph 52 of the judgment and point 3 of the operative provisions, stating that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.

It has been pointed out (see, as one recent example with a series of further references, the concurring opinion of Judge Ziemele in the case of Barborski v. Bulgaria , no. 12811/07, 26 March 2013 ) that the Court ’ s approach in stating, from time to time, that a judgment declaring a violation is in itself a form of compensation is not compatible with the general principles of international law as regards State responsibility which have been followed in the Court ’ s case-law.

Whilst it is true that the applicant may apply for a re-trial, I do not accept that he should therefore be deprived of any form of pecuniary compensation for the damage caused by the violation in this case.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ZUPAN ČIČ

I do not share the majority ’ s conclusions under Article 41 of the Convention.