NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

In its judgments on just satisfaction, the Court also uses the recognised practice of international institutions. For example, in 1995, in the case of Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece , 1374 the Court quoted the 13 September 1928 judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Factory at Chorzów case. This case set forth principles of reparation in international law: “…reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be, of damages for loss sustained which would not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it – such are the principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act contrary to international law.” 1375 As a basis for determining an exact amount of pecuniary damage, the Court usually uses reports of experts provided by the parties. 1376 For example, in the case of Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria , the applicant company submitted the report prepared by Bulgarkontrola AD, a certified goods control and damage assessment organisation. 1377 The Bulgarian government contested and filed with the Court the report prepared by Amrita OOD, private consulting company. This report showed that the state of the hotel at the time of its privatisation was very bad. This fact had, however, not been signalled in the documents drawn up when the hotel had been initially delivered to the applicant company, and not taken into account by the applicant company’s experts, Bulgarcontrola. For this reason, it considered that the Bulgarcontrola AD’s assessment could not be deemed objective. 1378 The Court thoroughly evaluated the different arguments of the parties. Its assessment as to the loss of profit by the applicant company, namely, hotel’s assumed occupancy, may serve as an example: “The applicant company’s experts said that the hotel’s assumed occupancy rate for the period in question was 60%. However, they did not explain the basis for this estimate. The respondent Government’s experts said that the occupancy rate would have been 40% during the first year and 50% during the second year. Their estimate was based on the occupancy rates of similar hotels in Sofia during that period. The Court therefore finds it more credible. However, it is unable to follow the respondent Government’s expert’s suggestion that the hotel’s occupancy rate would have been reduced by a further 60% during the first six months of the first year due to repairs. Were the Court to accept that suggestion, this would entail according the ‘repairs’ factor a double weight, since the applicant company actually carried out repairs after retaking possession of the hotel in October 1999. The period of these repairs, during which the hotel was apparently completely closed and hence producing no Judgments and Decisions 1997-V and The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, Series a no. 38. 1374 Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 36, Series a no. 330-B. 1375 Collection of Judgments, Series a no. 17, p. 47. 1376 Agrokompleks (just satisfaction) , cited above, §§ 85-95; Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), no. 57785/00, §§ 12-28, 10 January 2008 and Papamichalopoulos (Article 50), cited above, §§ 25-27. 1377 Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. (just satisfaction), cited above, § 30. 1378 Ibid. , § 34.

268