CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ receivership. The applicant credit union provided a detailed account of the assets it allegedly held when the receivership had been imposed. It relied in this respect on an expert report, where its assets were evaluated at CZK 528,279,840 (EUR 19,609,497). 25 The ECtHR observed that the violations found in the judgment stemmed from the receiver’s denial of access to the applicant credit union’s business and from a lack of adequate judicial review of the imposition of the receivership. It, however, noted that there was no causal link between the violations of Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on the one hand, and the imposition of the receivership on the other. In view of thereof, the ECtHR made no award of pecuniary damage in this case. In addition to this, there are certain limitations to just satisfaction requests . First , the ECtHR shall make an award only if national law allows only partial reparation of the violation to be made. In the case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) , 26 before applying to the ECtHR, the applicant had already received compensation by using a domestic remedy. The ECtHR, however, considered that an applicant can still claim to be a ‘victim’ after making use of that domestic remedy. The ECtHR calculated the difference between the amount obtained from the domestic courts and an amount that could be awarded by the ECtHR, if there were no domestic remedy. Second , just satisfaction is granted only if it is necessary as envisaged directly in Article 41 of the ECHR. This argument was used by the UK government in the judgment in the case of The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1). 27 They claimed that it was not necessary for Mr James Evans, as adviser to the applicants, and Mr Page and Mr Knightley, two of the three individual journalist applicants, to attend the hearings before the former European Commission of Human Rights. The ECtHR expressed a contrary opinion. It therefore accepted, as necessary, the whole of the item, which related to expenses occasioned by the attendance of these persons. 28 Third , the ECtHR will only award reparation when it is considered to be ‘just’ (équitable in the French text) in the circumstances . 29 Consequently, regard must be made to the particular features of each case. This is why it happens that in similar cases, which concern a breach of the same provision of the ECHR, the amount of just satisfaction may be different. For example, in both cases Agrokompleks v. Ukraine 30 and East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , 31 the ECtHR dealt with a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the second case, it held, additionally, that there had been an infringement of Article 13 of the ECHR. Nevertheless, in the first case, Ukraine was obliged to pay the applicant company the sum of EUR 27,000,000 and in the case of East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , only EUR 5,000,000. This divergence may be explained by the fact that the circumstances of each case were different. In some cases, the ECtHR may consider “to be just” to award no reparation. 32 25 Ibid. , § 7. 26 Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V. 27 The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, §15, Series A no. 38. 28 Ibid. , § 31. 29 Para. 2 of the Practice directions on just satisfaction claims. 30 Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 23465/03, 25 July 2013. 31 East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine, no. 19336/04, 23 January 2014. 32 Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, § 136, ECHR 2013 (extracts).

164