JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE S SPIELMANN AND MALINVERNI

P aragraph 99 of the judgment states: “A s regards the findings under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court ... reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of the provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested ... ”

For reasons we have explained on many occasions, either alone or together with other judges , [1] we would very much have liked th is principle , on account of its importance, to have been reflected in the operative part of the judgment .

[1] See for example 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); and Prežec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009). See also the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni in Pavlenko v. Russia , (no. 42371/02 , 1 April 2010) , the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni, joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and Popović in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010), as well as the concurring opin i on of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008-...).