NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Russian government. The Court nonetheless considered it reasonable to grant the applicants a just satisfaction award. 1385 Third, in addition to the previous rule, the applicant must not only submit itemised particulars of all claims , but also corroborate them with any relevant supporting documents . 1386 Neither the Rules of Court nor the Directions on just satisfaction envisage a specific list of evidences that may serve as supporting documents to the claims. To prove the pecuniary damage, as stated before, the applicants often submit expert reports. Such reports, in general, have a greater probative value, but they do not guarantee that an applicant will receive the amount specified in the expert report or even any amount at all. In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2008, in the case of Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic , 1387 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicant credit union, because it was not able to use the rights guaranteed by the Convention due to the imposed receivership. The applicant credit union provided a detailed account of the assets it allegedly held when the receivership had been imposed. It relied in this respect on an expert report attached to its submissions of 4 April 2006, where its assets were evaluated at CZK 528,279,840 (EUR 19,609,497). 1388 The Czech government submitted that there was no causal link between the imposition of the receivership and the pecuniary damage claimed. The Court observed that the violations found in the judgment stemmed from the receiver’s denial of access to the applicant credit union’s business and from a lack of adequate judicial review of the imposition of the receivership. It however, did not find a violation of the Convention in the making of the receivership order as such. Consequently, there were no causal link between the violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on the one hand, and the imposition of the receivership on the other. Whilst the imposition of the receivership might well have had adverse financial consequences for the credit union, it was impossible to say what the eventual economic standing of the applicant credit union might have been, had it been able to challenge the imposition of those measures. In view of thereof, the Court made no award of pecuniary damage. Fourth, the Court shall make an award only if national law allows only partial reparation of the violation to bemade . In the case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) , 1389 before applying to the Court, the applicant had already obtained a finding of a violation at the domestic level and received compensation by using a domestic remedy. The Court, however, considered that an applicant can still claim to be a ‘victim’ after making use of that domestic remedy. Accordingly, the Court calculated the difference between the amount obtained from the domestic courts and an amount that could be awarded by the Court, if there were no domestic remedy. This means that the Court 1385 KMEC, 2012, cited above, p. 270. 1386 Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. 1387 Družstevní záložna Pria , cited above. 1388 Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction), no. 72034/01, § 7, 21 January 2010. 1389 Scordino [GC], cited above, § 268-269.

270