CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, 40 it decided on the measures to be applied in respect of the applicant company referring simultaneously to both Articles 41 and 46 of the ECHR. In its judgment in the case of Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova the ECtHR held that Moldova must return the ‘Dacia’ hotel to the applicant company under the heading ‘pecuniary damage’ relying on Article 41 of the ECHR. On the contrary, in the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, 41 when applying Articles 41 and 46 of the ECHR, an obligation of the respondent state to secure the applicant’s reinstatement to the post of judge of the Supreme Court was made under the heading ‘Indication of general and individual measures’. In accordance with the practice direction of the ECtHR just satisfaction may be afforded under Article 41 of the ECHR in respect of: (a) pecuniary damage; (b) non-pecuniary damage; and (c) costs and expenses. 42 Using the method of exclusion, one may conclude that the individual measures should fall rather under Article 46 of the ECHR. However, in the current Practice direction, the ECtHR specifies that although the just satisfaction awards will normally be in the form of a sum of money, in extremely rare cases the ECtHR can consider a consequential order aimed at putting an end or remedying the violation in question. 43 In such a situation it would be the ECtHR’ discretion to offer guidance for the execution of its judgment under Article 46 of the ECHR. The above mentioned certifies that both the payment of compensation and concrete measures represent a form of just satisfaction. But if the reparation in the form of pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses should be seen as the standing approach applied by the ECtHR, imposition on the state of an obligation to comply with general or/and individual measures will be an exceptional form of just satisfaction, which is provided in the frames of an execution of judgment under Article 46 of the ECHR. Given these conclusions, the following parts of the paper will focus mainly on the monetary award of just satisfaction. Concrete measures may be discussed only for the purposes of a demonstration of particularities of some judgments. This brings us to the next area, namely, to the types or components of the just satisfaction awards under the ECtHR standard approach. 1.3 Components of just satisfaction award The monetary compensation (reparation) is usually awarded under three heads, namely: a) pecuniary damage; b) non-pecuniary damage; and c) legal costs and expenses. Moreover, the ECtHR often decides to grant the default interest, 44 which serves as an additional means of compensation. Therefore, in the next sections, we will examine the four basic concepts relating to the awards of just satisfaction: 1) pecuniary damage; 2) non-pecuniary damage; 3) cost and expenses, and 4) default interest. Execution of a judgment may raise a number of questions relating for example to the currency of the award or the place of payment. These additional aspects of just satisfaction awards will be discussed later in this part of the manuscript. First of all, the analysis will focus on the pecuniary damage.

40 Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy , nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 237, 4 March 2014 . 41 Oleksandr Volkov , cited above.

42 Practice Directions on Just satisfaction claims. Rules of Court. The new edition entered into force on 1 January 2020, p. 66. URL: < http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf> accessed 6 June 2021. 43 Ibid., para. 23, p. 67. 44 Lagutin and Others v. Russia , nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08, and 7451/09, § 138, 24 April 2014.

166