JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE S GYULUMYAN , MYJER AND LÓPEZ GUERRA

In the cases of K ormoš v. Slovakia (judgment of 8 November 2011) and Žúbor v. Slovakia (judgment of 6 December 2011) – both referred to in the present judgment – we voted for no violation.

In our joint dissenting opinions we expressed our point of view as follows: “ (. . .) In our opinion the level of just satisfaction was not manifestly inadequate or unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. That the acceptable amount at the national level may be lower than the compensation usually awarded by the Court in similar cases has to do with the fact that there is a clear difference between a final resolution of the matter at the national level by the appropriate authority – through the express acknowledgment that a violation has taken place and the awarding of appropriate and sufficient redress – and the situation in which it is the Court which must decide on the issue in the absence of any acknowledgment of a violation by the State .” ( With further reference to paragraph 139 of the Grand Chamber judgment of 29 March 2006 in the case of Cocchiarella v. Italy (no. 64886/01 , ECHR 2006 V) . )

The Government of the Slovak Republic asked for those two cases to be referred to the Grand Chamber. The Panel of the Grand Chamber dismissed the requests on 8 March 2012.

The facts of the present case resemble the facts in the K ormoš and Žúbor cases. In view of the fact that the approach of the majority in K ormoš and Žúbor holds , we felt it proper to follow that precedent in the present case. We therefore voted for a violation.