PARTLY CONCURRING DISSENTING OPINION

OF JUDGE LOUCAIDES

1. I agree with the finding that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this case in which the proceedings in question lasted 11 years, 6 months and 10 days. The length of the proceedings before the Federal Court between 1991-1995, was found to be particularly excessive.

2. However, I disagree that as regards non-pecuniary damage the finding of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is sufficient. I believe that in the circumstance of the case, taking into account in particular the length of the proceedings the applicant should be awarded damages. In this respect I take into account the practice of the Court in comparable cases.