NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

in the cases of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine 1361 and Burdov v. Russia (No. 2). 1362 Here, the Court 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 the breach of the Convention. The previously mentioned case of Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy 1363 may serve as an example of an individual measure. In this case, having found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the Court 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 , 1364 the Court ruled that Ukraine shall secure the applicant’s reinstatement in the post of judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine at the earliest possible date. In view of its nature, an individual measure concerns legal persons only on very rare occasions. The judgment of the Court in the previously-discussed case of Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova 1365 may serve as a similar example for individual measures. Here, the Court held that Moldova must return to the applicant company the ‘Dacia’ hotel with all its furnishings and equipment and the underlying land, or pay EUR 7,612,000, representing its current market value. This conclusion, however, was not under the heading of ‘individual measures’, as the in Volkov case or Grande Stevens case, but was issued in the frame of ‘pecuniary damage’. In view of the difference within the Court’s practice, it is not always easy to distinguish between just satisfaction and the other measures envisaged under the Convention. As far as the aim of this study is to address the status of non-governmental organisations under the Convention, to prevent confusion, the following part will focus mainly on the monetary award of just satisfaction. General measures may be invoked only for the purposes of demonstration of particularities of the judgment. As mentioned before, the key provision concerning just satisfaction under the Convention is Article 41, which sounds as follows: “ Article 41 – Just satisfaction If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” Apart from the general provision on just satisfaction enshrined in Article 41 of the Convention, further provisions regarding indemnification can be found in the Rules of Court. 1366 The CoE experts also elaborated practice directions to the Rules 1361 Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above. 1362 Burdov (no. 2) , cited above. 1363 Grande Stevens, cited above, § 237. 1364 Oleksandr Volkov , cited above. 1365 Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. 3052/04, § 55, 24 February 2009. 1366 Rules of Court incorporates amendments to Rule 47 made by the Plenary Court on 6 May 2013.

266