CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ REPARATIONS TO CORPORATIONS: JUST SATISFACTION AWARDED … of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the practice of the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers. In the case of RTBF v. Belgium, the ECtHR ruled that ‘the finding of a violation is sufficient to compensate for the damage sustained’, 7 which may be seen as an expression of an official declaration restoring the rights of the victim representing the term ‘ satisfaction ’. The practice of the ECtHR also includes reimbursement of a financially assessable damage, which reflects the notion of compensation . 8 Moreover, the awards under Article 41 of the ECHR may also take the form of restitution . For example, in the case of Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova , the ECtHR required Moldova to re-establish the situation that existed before, specifically, to return to the applicant company the hotel that it lost due to the annulment of the hotel’s privatisation. 9 In the case of Oyal v. Turkey , which concerned the infection of a new-born baby with the HIV virus during blood transfusions at a state hospital, the Government of Turkey was obliged to provide free and full medical cover to the applicant during his lifetime. 10 This award is in a substance very similar to rehabilitation . Under Article 46 § 1 of the ECHR the execution process of judgments of the ECtHR is based on compliance by a contracting party with its obligations relating to non repetition . 11 All the above mentioned demonstrates that the term ‘just satisfaction’ applied in the ECHR contains all the five forms of reparation . Given this, the objective of the present study is to explain the rules on awarding reparations (just satisfaction) to corporations under the ECHR. Aiming to reach this goal, the first part of the paper will cover an examination of the main principles of just satisfaction under the ECHR. In the second part, an analysis of specifics of just satisfaction awards in respect of corporations will be discussed. The third and final part of the paper will compare the amounts of reparation awarded by the ECtHR to corporations with those granted to natural persons and will reflect on the most expensive human rights violations. In the Conclusions the summary of the research is provided. To be more precise with regard to the methodology of the current research, it should be noted that the analysis at issue will cover only the corporations in the sense of private business entities and will not focus on the distinction between private entities and public corporations. The study will also be limited to the examination of individual applications and will not include the inspection of the inter-state complaints, although under the ECHR it is possible for the state to invoke the rights of legal persons. 12 In view of this, the next part of the manuscript will elaborate on the main principles of just satisfaction as derived from the ECHR, the CM Rules, and the ECtHR case-law on the individual complaints. 7 RTBF v. Belgium , no. 50084/06, § 120, ECHR 2011 (extracts). 8 The just satisfaction award to OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos reached unprecedentedly almost two billion euros. See OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 14902/04, 31 July 2014. 9 Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. 3052/04, § 55, 24 February 2009. 10 Oyal v. Turkey , no. 4864/05, § 102, 23 March 2010. 11 See Guide on Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Binding force and execution of judgments, updated on 30 April 2022, p. 13. URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_46_ ENG.pdf (accessed 11 June 2022) and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 May 2006 at the 964th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies and amended on 18 January 2017 at the 1275th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. 12 Slovenia v. Croatia (dec.) [GC], no. 54155/16, § 66, 18 November 2020.

161