DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FURA-SANDSTRÖM

I voted against the majority, which found a violation of Article 6 § 1. In my view, there is no violation of Article 6 § 1 for the following reasons.

I agree with the Government ’ s statement that there were two different sets of proceedings which should be evaluated separately. When doing that, I find that both sets of proceedings meet the requirements set forth in the Court ’ s case-law as regards the length of proceedings in criminal cases.

Even assuming that the two sets of proceedings are to be assessed as one, as the majority has found, and taking into account only the periods when the cases were actually pending before the courts, I cannot find the length (to date more than six years and three months) excessive. Six courts examined the case, corresponding to three degrees of ordinary jurisdiction and one extraordinary appeal (see paragraph 17 of the judgment). Even if in my view the length so far (the proceedings are still pending) does meet the requirement of a “reasonable time”, I do not exclude that there might be a problem in the future. However, this issue is premature.