obtained that for all values of B$_{⊥}$ , the correlation area σ ≥ σ $^{∗}$, and therefore, the Eq. (11) is valid. The theoretical dependence of I (1) F on n$_{A}$ is shown in Fig. 7 by solid line. 

The experimental dependence I (1) ,max F ( n$_{A}$ ) agrees qualitatively with the behavior of theo- retical curve but several experimental points disagree with our theoretical predictions. One of possible reason of this discrepancy is the variation of the misalignment length δ for different magnetic fields B$_{⊥}$ . In order to check this hypothesis we extracted σ from the experimental values of I max c by using Eq. (8) for different values of n$_{A}$ . Substituting the obtained values of σ into Eq.(11) we calculated I (1) ,max F for each experimental values of n$_{A}$ . The result of such procedure is shown in Fig.7 by closed circles. By making use of this procedure the agreement between the theoretical dependence and experiment becomes better. So we can conclude that the variation of δ strongly influences the maximum amplitude of the first Fiske step. 

However, we have to notice that our theoretical analysis is devoted to averaged quantity only. As has been shown in Refs. [20, 21], in inhomogeneous Josephson junctions strong mesoscopic fluctuations of various physical quantities occur. These fluctuations manifest themselves in the form of random oscillations on the dependence of I$_{c}$ ( n$_{A}$ ) (or I$_{c}$ ( B$_{‖}$ )). 

These oscillations can be especially large for the dependence I (1) ,max F on n$_{A}$ due to a strong nonlinearity of Eqs. (4) and (5). 

The pronounced deviation of the experimental point at n$_{A}$ = 0 . 15 µm − $^{2}$( B$_{⊥}$ = 3 . 2 G ) and n$_{A}$ = 0 . 26 µm − $^{2}$( B$_{⊥}$ = 5 . 3 G ) from the theoretical prediction (see Fig.7) can be also attributed to the trapping of so called ”monopole” Abrikosov vortex. The ”monopole” vortex penetrates only a one superconducting electrode of the tunnel junction and its magnetic field spreads over the total area of a ”small” Josephson junction. Such Abrikosov vortex trapped near the junction center, alters the I$_{c}$ ( B$_{‖}$ ) dependence from the Fraunhofer pattern to the one with two primary lobes and with suppressed Josephson critical current at B$_{‖}$ = 0. 

In addition, the ampiltude of the first Fiske step is maximized. Even if a large number of Abrikosov vortices is trapped, the effect of the monopole vortex, pinned in the central part of junction area, dominates [32]. Because of a statistical character of the trapping process, the cooling in the fields B$_{⊥}$ = 3 . 2 G and B$_{⊥}$ = 5 . 3 G can provide the trapping of ”monopole” Abrikosov vortex near the junction center, which, in turn, maximize the first Fiske step, similar to the magnetic flux trapping effect in case of a Josephson junction with annular geometry [33]. The shapes of the I$_{c}$ ( B$_{‖}$ ) dependencies shown in Fig. 5c and 5e (especially 

