PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GYULUMYAN

In the present case I voted with the majority in finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, I beg to differ from the Court ’ s conclusions on just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.

In my opinion the assessment of non-pecuniary damage in this case should have taken account of the fact that the applicant himself contributed to the rejection of his constitutional complaint as being made belatedly, by waiting until the very end of the two-month period allowed before lodging his complaint with the Constitutional Court.

In so far as this fact was not taken into consideration by the majority, I consider the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be excessive.

Even leaving this point aside, I am of the view that the sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage in this case was not determined on an equitable basis.