NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001-I). This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attached to the primary obligation of the Contracting States to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention (Article 1) (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series a no. 330-B). 195. However, exceptionally, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court will seek to indicate the type of measure that might be taken in order to put an end to a violation it has found to exist. In such circumstances, it may propose various options and leave the choice of measure and its implementation to the discretion of the State concerned (see, for example, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V). In certain cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate a specific measure (see, for example, Assanidze , cited above, §§ 202 and 203; Aleksanyan v. Russia , no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; and Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan , no. 40984/07, §§ 176 and 177, 22 April 2010).” 1358 It is possible to summarise these principles by saying that if the Court finds a violation of the Convention, in its judgment, it may order the respondent state to pay the applicant a sum of money – just satisfaction. Apart from this, the Court may also conclude that the most appropriate form of redress is for the respondent contracting party to take specific action, such as to grant the applicant a re-trial, release him or her from prison, provide full and free medical coverage and many others. 1359 For purposes of the Convention proceedings, the term ‘just satisfaction’ includes primarily monetary awards to compensate an applicant’s damage. Generally speaking, the Court may award different types of compensation, namely, concrete measures and monetary awards. Just satisfaction should be seen as the second type of compensation. Concrete measures consist of general measures and individual measures . Article 46 of the Convention serves as a basis for general and individual measures. Insofar as is relevant, it provides: “1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution…”. Under this provision, the applicants may request the Court to indicate general or individual measures aimed at redressing their situation. General measures usually represent a form of various legislative reforms. For example, in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia , 1360 the Court 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 “erasure” concerned an entire category of former SFRY citizens with permanent residence in Slovenia who had citizenship from one of the other former SFRY republics at the time of Slovenia’s declaration of independence. It therefore affected a large number of persons. The other example is the pilot judgments

1358 Oleksandr Volkov , cited above, §§ 193-195. 1359 REID, 2012, cited above, pp. 834-835. 1360 Kurić [GC], cited above, § 409.

265