CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN JOINED BY JUDGE VAJIĆ

1. It is not without hesitation that I accept that the applicant has victim status.

2. Indeed, it is not entirely clear if the applicant ' s wife brought a civil claim in her own name or on behalf of the applicant. After all, on 19 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court confirmed her standing as a plaintiff in the civil proceedings (paragraph 15 of the judgment). In most legal systems the applicant ' s wife ' s standing would have been inconsistent with the maxim “ Nul ne plaide par procureur ”.

3. However, since the parties do not dispute whether the applicant may claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 6 in the proceedings which ended on 17 April 2002 and, as follows from the Government ' s observations, this claim was regarded under domestic law as having been lodged under the implicit authority of the applicant and on his behalf, I am satisfied, for the reasons given in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment, that the applicant can claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1.

4. The ambiguous procedural status of the applicant ' s wife give rises to a further ambiguity concerning the merits of the case. In paragraph 33 of the judgment, it is stated that “[t] aking into account [the applicant ' s wife ' s] standing as a plaintiff in those proceedings, it cannot be argued that the hearings were conducted in the absence of a party to the dispute”.

5. Put simply, it is entirely unclear who was to be considered as “a party to the dispute”: the applicant, his wife or both?

6. The effect of this ambiguity is, however, limited as, in any event, the applicant was deprived of a fair trial. In particular, his absence from the hearing was in violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 34 to 38 of the judgment.