CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ

Conclusions The objective of this paper was to explain the rules on awarding reparations to corporations under the ECHR. The examination of the main principles of just satisfaction under the ECHR confirms that the key criterion for obtaining a reparation is finding a breach of the ECHR in respect to a corporation. The analysis demonstrates that corporations may not become victims of all the rights set forth in the ECHR. Therefore, they will hardly obtain compensation for a violation of the right to life, for instance. The most frequent are the infringements of their property rights and the right to a fair trial. Although the basic rules for awarding just satisfaction are the same for all the categories of the applicants, there are some particularities concerning the awards to corporations. First, before the millennium the ECtHR was reluctant to grant the corporations non-pecuniary damage. The situation has changed with adoption of the judgment in Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal, where the ECtHR concluded that the non-pecuniary loss can also be suffered by companies. Second, the difficulties with payment of just satisfaction may occur when the head office and subdivisions of a corporation are situated in different countries. To avoid any complications, the best solution would be concluding a special agreement between the respondent state and the taxing state on an exemption from taxation of the amount of just satisfaction. Third, the specific nature of a corporation in comparison to natural persons have led to an adoption of special rules on companies in the process of liquidation. One of the particularities of the just satisfaction awards in respect to corporations is that very often they receive more than natural persons, in particular with respect to the claims regarding property. It is true that the authors of the ECHR, when drafting the ECHR, did not plan to compensate the financial risks of corporations. Nonetheless, the right to property may have a number of forms. A person may own a car, a flat, or a company. Non-protection of the property rights of the owners of businesses would be discriminatory. Therefore, in the end, the ECtHR also offered protection to legal persons. Moreover, the notion of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 precisely requires it. 100 It should be stressed that the huge amounts of just satisfaction awarded to corporations first of all, compensated their pecuniary damage corroborated by financial reports. It is true that the property rights represent the ‘most expensive’ violation, but only with respect to compensation of pecuniary loss. Non-pecuniary damage awarded to corporations separately is comparable to the one assigned to natural persons in respect of the breaches of Article 2 (rights to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture). It means that corporations are not in any favourable position in the proceedings before the ECtHR.

100 See the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” URL: accessed 11 June 2022.

176