CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ

REPARATIONS TO CORPORATIONS: JUST SATISFACTION AWARDED …

1.1 Requirements for awarding just satisfaction General conditions for awarding just satisfaction can be derived from the ECHR itself, Rules of Court, including the Practice directions on just satisfaction, 17 and from the case-law of the ECtHR. They can be summarized as follows: 1. The ECtHR must find that there has been a violation of the ECHR, otherwise the applicant will not be granted any reparation. Given the procedural nature of the ECtHR decisions, it is absolutely clear that just satisfaction can be found only in its judgments. Sometimes, when the question of the application of Article 41 of the ECHR is not ready for a decision, the ECtHR may reserve it and issue a separate judgment on just satisfaction later. 18 2. The applicant must submit a special request for just satisfaction . 19 For example, in the case of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , 20 the applicant did not submit any claims in respect of damage or costs and expenses. For that reason, no award was made under those heads. In several cases, 21 however, the ECtHR departed from this condition and awarded just satisfaction to applicants that forgot to make a specific claim to that effect. In the case of Kraynova and Kraynov and 9 other “Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia , 22 the applicants set out claims for just satisfaction in their initial application forms, but failed to resubmit these claims at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, i.e., after notice of the applications had been given to the Russian government. The ECtHR nonetheless considered it reasonable to grant the applicants a just satisfaction award. 3. The applicant must not only submit itemised particulars of all claims, but also corroborate them with any relevant supporting documents . 23 Neither the Rules of Court nor the Practice directions on just satisfaction envisage a specific list of evidence that may serve as supporting documents to the claims. Nonetheless, as a rule the applicants submit expert reports to prove the pecuniary damage. Such reports, in general, have a greater probative value, but they do not guarantee that an applicant will receive the amount specified in the expert report or even any amount at all. In the judgment of the case Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic , 24 the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicant credit union, because it was not able to use the rights guaranteed by the ECHR due to the imposed

17 Rules of Court as of 17 March 2022. URL: accessed 11 June 2022. 18 Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 23465/03, 25 July 2013.

19 Article 5 of the Practice Directions within the Rules of Court. 20 Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, § 304, 30 April 2013.

21 Senchenko and Others and 35 other “Yakut Pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 32865/06, 3137/07, 3158/07, 5650/07, 5654/07, 5657/07, 5663/07, 6727/07, 6822/07, 6828/07, 6846/07, 8553/07, 8560/07, 11576/07, 11578/07, 11582/07, 11583/07, 11584/07, 11585/07, 12966/07, 13830/07, 13831/07, 13833/07, 13835/07, 19001/07, 19003/07, 19736/07, 19738/07, 19740/07, 19741/07, 19744/07, 19746/07, 19749/07, 19752/07, 20343/07 and 20939/07, 28 May 2009 and Kraynova and Kraynov and 9 other “Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 7306/07, 8555/07, 11905/07, 11908/07, 11912/07, 14314/07, 14316/07, 14322/07, 14323/07, and 14326/07, 17 December 2009. 22 Kraynova and Kraynov and other “Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 7306/07 and 9 others , § 14, 17 December 2009. 23 Rule 60, para. 2 of the Rules of Court. 24 Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction), no. 72034/01, 21 January 2010.

163