JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE S SPIELMANN AND MALINVERNI

In paragraph 58 the judgment states “ that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would, as a rule, be to reopen the proceedings in due course and re ‑ examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair hearing (see, for example, Lungoci v. Romania , no. 62710/00, § 56, 26 January 2006, and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria , no. 40476/98, § 90, 10 August 2006 ). In this connection the Court notes that the applicant can now file a petition under section 428a of the Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 16 above) for the reopening of the above-mentioned civil proceedings in respect of which the Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. ”

For reasons we have explained on many occasions, [1] we would very much have liked this principle, on account of its importance, to have been reflected in the operative part of the judgment.

That requirement appears to us to be all the more necessary in the present case, in view of the finding that, “[h]aving regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that there is no call to award the applicant any sum on account of non-pecuniary damage ” (see paragraph 58).

[1] See our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); Prežec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009; and Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010).