DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Vajić

1. I cannot agree with the majority ’ s finding that there was a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because the civil proceedings in which the applicant complained of inadequate health care in prison were conducted in his absence.

2. In the proceedings before the first-instance court, the applicant was not personally present at the hearing, but he was represented. The judgment was silent as to the applicant ’ s request for leave to appear.

The Court of Appeal examined the applicant ’ s appeal in the absence of both the applicant and his representative.

Because of this procedural flaw, following the applicant ’ s cassation appeal the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal ’ s judgment and remitted the case to it for fresh examination (paragraph 31 of the judgment).

Subsequently, the Court of Appeal examined the case in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his representative.

3. In acting thus the domestic courts have, in my opinion, sufficiently remedied the irregularities of the civil proceedings against the applicant. It was not demonstrated that the circumstances were such as to indicate that the documentary evidence of his disease and medical treatment was not complete, i.e. that the applicant ’ s medical records did not suffice for the Court to hear the case. Nor is there any mention in the judgment of a reason why the applicant ’ s personal attendance at the hearing was necessary.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicant ’ s presence was not essential for the effective presentation of his claim and that there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in the present case.