CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ REPARATIONS TO CORPORATIONS: JUST SATISFACTION AWARDED … Moreover, in determining the amount of compensation, the ECtHR may decide to take guidance from standards of national law . 33 It is, however, never bound by them. In the case of Agrokompleks v. Ukraine , the ECtHR mentioned that the traditional approach is to award the applicant the sum which they would have received had the judgment in question not been quashed, deducting the subsequent domestic award. 34 With regard to the different forms of just satisfaction, additional conditions may be envisaged. For example, when calculating the costs and expenses, the applicant must prove that 1) the costs were actually incurred, 2) they were necessary to prevent a violation, and 3) they were reasonable in terms of amount. Before discussing the components of just satisfaction, it is necessary to say a few words about general and individual measures, which can be envisaged in an ECtHR judgment. 1.2 General measures and individual measures. The applicants may request the ECtHR to indicate concrete measures aimed at redressing their situation. Apart from this, the ECtHR may decide to impose on the state general measures, when there is a systemic deficiency which has already caused and is likely to further produce a large number of identical complaints. To be precise, the measures introduced under the ECHR may take a form of general measures and individual measures. General measures usually redress a defective application of legal provisions or the necessity to adopt new legislation and require launching of legislative reforms from the states. For example, in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia , 35 the ECtHR required Slovenia to set up an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme in respect of persons that were ‘erased’ from the Register of Permanent Residents and became aliens without a residence permit. The other example is the pilot judgments in the cases of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine 36 and Burdov v. Russia (No.2). 37 Here, the ECtHR required Ukraine and Russia to set up an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies, which would secure adequate and sufficient redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments. Individual measures embody a certain act done by the respondent state in respect of the applicant with an aim to discontinue a breach of the ECHR. For instance, in the case of Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, 38 having found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the ECtHR considered it appropriate for the respondent state to ensure that the new criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants in violation of this provision were closed in the shortest possible time and without adverse consequences for the applicants. In the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , 39 the ECtHR ruled that Ukraine shall secure the applicant’s reinstatement to the post of judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine at the earliest possible date. The ECtHR does not make a clear distinction between ‘just satisfaction’ under Article 41 of the ECHR and the measures under Article 46 of the ECHR. For example, in the case of

33 Article 3 of the Just satisfaction claims (Practice Directions). 34 Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 23465/03, § 83, 25 July 2013. 35 Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 415, ECHR 2012 (extracts). 36 Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009. 37 Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 . 38 Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy , nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 237, 4 March 2014 . 39 Oleksandr Volkov , cited above.

165