34 İLHAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ (c) The issue is not (as the Commission reasoned and the Court accepted) whether “the name of the applicant should be replaced by the name Abdüllatif İlhan for the purposes of this application” (see paragraph 212 of the Commission's report). Reasoning to the effect that “it amounts to the same thing” is not legal reasoning. Abdüllatif İlhan could have appointed his brother Nasır İlhan as his legal representative before the Convention institutions after duly lodging his application as a victim of a violation. 6. Nor do I regard the Court's conclusion on this subject as being an interpretation of the notion of “victim” under Article 34. I consider that interpreting a provision or a notion (as in the instant case) in such a way as to widen its scope of application must not amount to adding a new provision to the Convention. 7. In conclusion, as the Convention does not recognise the notion of “victim by proxy”, the Court had no alternative but to declare the application in the present case inadmissible. 8. As to the application of Article 41 of the Convention, I dissent from the majority judgment, firstly, as regards just satisfaction and, secondly, as regards the manner of reimbursing costs, for the following reasons. 9. To begin with, the compensation. In the great majority of cases the Court has pointed out and clearly affirmed the speculative and fictitious nature of claims in respect of pecuniary damage where primarily “actuarial calculations” were entailed and consequently has nearly always dismissed this type of claim. 10. In the rare, exceptional cases in which it awarded the applicant a specified sum for pecuniary damage, it determined the amount on an equitable basis, never exceeding reasonable limits and thereby avoiding any speculative calculation. 11. In the instant case the Court – ignoring its settled case-law – has not only undertaken speculative “actuarial calculations” but has moreover considered it just and reasonable to award the applicant an unprecedented and more than excessive sum (80,000 pounds sterling (GBP)). The average sum is between GBP 15,000 and GBP 20,000. I consider that the credibility and persuasive force of judicial decisions stem from consistency of case-law and adherence to it, which means avoiding extremes. By way of justifying what has just been said, I take the liberty of referring to earlier judgments of the Court, as illustrations. I set out the relevant paragraphs in full below1. 1. Emphasis has been added to some of the phrases and figures.