Tokens: 63
.
In
this
misguided
spirit
,
the
majority
go
so
far
as
to
admit
the
inadmissible
in
a
State
governed
by
the
rule
of
law
when
applying
Article
7
to
Mr
Gironda
:
a
trade
-
off
between
non
-
derogable
Article
7
guarantees
and
derogable
Article
6
rights[162
]
.
What
is
more
,
in
their
apparent
effort
to
save
confisca
urbanistica
senza
condanna
at
any
cost
in
the
case
of
Mr
Gironda
,
the
majority
contradict
themselves
.
Although
they
say
that
confisca
senza
condanna
would
only
be
admissible
under
Article
7
of
the
Convention
“
provided
that
the
domestic
courts
in
question
acted
in
strict
compliance
with
the
defence
rights
enshrined
in
Article
6
of
the
Convention”[163
]
,
they
find
a
violation
of
Article
6
§
2
of
the
Convention
with
regard
to
Mr
Gironda
and
no
violation
of
Article
7
with
regard
to
the
same
applicant
.
It
is
beyond
my
understanding
why
the
majority
do
not
apply
their
own
test
to
the
case
of
Mr
Gironda
.
In
his
case
,
there
was
no
“
strict
compliance
”
with
the
guarantees
of
Article
6
and
,
therefore
,
according
to
the
majority
’s
own
test
,
there
should
be
a
violation
not
only
of
Article
6
,
but
also
of
Article
7
.
Be
that
as
it
may
,
at
the
end
of
the
day
,
confisca
urbanistica
senza
condanna
is
not
saved
,
since
it
always
breaches
the
presumption
of
innocence
,
as
the
almost
unanimous
Grand
Chamber
acknowledges[164
]
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O