CYIL 2015

THE HIGHEST AMOUNTS OF JUST SATISFACTION… the Committee of Ministers took note that by 15 June 2015 the Russian authorities were to produce a comprehensive action plan, including a binding time frame, for the distribution of the just satisfaction awarded in respect of pecuniary damage. 64 It was decided to resume consideration of this case at its 1236th meeting (September 2015) (DH) at the latest. In view of the huge amount of the award, however, there is a great probability that this judgment of the Court will not be executed in full in the nearest few years. Apart from execution, it has to be noted that in a few of these top cases the judgment at issue concerned not only legal but also natural persons. This was already mentioned in respect of the Stran Greek Refineries case, where the applicant company filed a complaint together with its sole shareholder, Mr Stratis Andreadis. 65 In the case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy the second applicant was Mr Francescantonio Di Stefano, the statutory representative of the applicant company. 66 The applicant legal person at the moment of the rendering of the Court’s judgment ceased to exist. Therefore, Russia has to pay the just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant company’s shareholders as they stood at the time of the company’s liquidation. 67 Given this, it would be of interest to compare the The given examples show that, by lodging a complaint with the Court, legal persons have a chance to obtain a considerable amount of compensation. All the discussed judgments concerned a breach of A 1 P-1, which means that this is the most important provision of the Convention for companies. Regarding natural persons, it is, undoubtedly, the right to life, as foreseen by Article 2 of the Convention, that is the most important guarantee. Individual applicants, apart from those submitting the application together with businesses, have never received such particularly huge amounts of compensation. One of the highest amounts awarded to a natural person in respect of an infringement of Article 2 was an amount of EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand euros) in the case of Gongadze v. Ukraine . 68 On the other hand, the amounts claimed and awarded to individuals under A 1 P-1 may also be higher. 69 For example, in the case of Hirschhorn v. Romania , 70 the respondent state was obliged 64 1222 meeting (10-12 March 2015) (DH) – Communication from the applicant’s representative (26/02/2015) in the case of OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos against Russian Federation (Application No. 14902/04). 65 Stran Greek Refineries, cited above, § 6. 66 Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above, § 8. 67 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 43. 68 Gongadze v. Ukraine , no. 34056/02, § 198, ECHR 2005-XI. 69 Draon v. France (just satisfaction – striking out) [GC], no. 1513/03, ECHR 2006-IX. 70 Hirschhorn v. Romania , no. 29294/02, § 117, 26 July 2007. sums awarded by the Court to natural and to legal persons. 4. Why legal persons receive more than individuals

269