CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ REPARATIONS TO CORPORATIONS: JUST SATISFACTION AWARDED … The analysis of the case-law demonstrates that the most expensive violations of human rights represent the combination of breaches of Article 6 (right to fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR (property rights) 93 or Article of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR and Article 10 (freedom of expression). 94 The awards in issue concern predominantly corporations. Nonetheless, inmany of the cases with the highest amount of just satisfaction the application was lodged with the ECtHR by natural and legal persons together. Consequently, the reparation was provided to both of them. In some of the judgments regarding such applicants the ECtHR specifies that the exact sum of just satisfaction to be paid individually to each of them. 95 More often it decides to pay the reparation to the applicants jointly. 96 This was the approach applied by the ECtHR in the case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece. 97 In the case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy 98 the ECtHR distinguished between the first applicant, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., and the second applicant, Mr Francescantonio Di Stefano. It decided to award just satisfaction only to the applicant company. Nonetheless, the difference between the Mr Di Stefano and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. is not so clear as the second applicant is the statutory representative of the applicant company, and, accordingly, may dispose of the funds of the company in issue. When the applicant corporation (OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos) ceased to exist at the moment of rendering of the ECtHR’s judgment, Russian Government had to pay the just satisfaction to the applicant company’s shareholders (mostly individuals). 99 Therefore, it would be probably incorrect to consider that the corporations receive more than natural persons as their claims may be closely related. Given the different material bases of legal and natural persons, it is true that at the end corporations can receive higher reparations, but their rights under the ECHR are not more important than the rights of natural persons. They just often lose more money, and consequently, the awards are higher. It is necessary to mention that these millions of euros were awarded to a wide extent in respect of pecuniary damage. The decision-making of the ECtHR was based on the financial reports. As to the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants (often in the cases dealing with violations under Article 2 and 3 of the ECHR), it is hardly assessable since the moral suffering may not be evaluated in money directly. Therefore, the amounts of reparation under this component of just satisfaction were always much lower. Given this, it should be stressed that the message of huge amount of just satisfaction awarded to corporation is the need of equal protection of human rights of all persons, no matter natural or legal.

93 See, for example, an award of about 27 million Euro in the case of Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 23465/03, 25 July 2013 or appr. 9 million Euro in the case of Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v. Cyprus (just satisfaction), no. 31811/04, 14 April 2015. 94 The ECtHR awarded just satisfaction of more than 10 million euros in the case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012. 95 Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013. 96 Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 172, ECHR 2005-VII. 97 Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , 9 December 1994, § 83, Series A no. 301-B. 98 Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012. 99 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 43.

175