NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

shall provide the applicant with a full sum of award, if the domestic remedy does not exist or is not available to an Article 34 NGO. Fifth, just satisfaction is granted only if it is necessary . This rule may be found directly in the provisions of Article 41 of the Convention.This argument was used by the UK government in the judgment in the case of The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1). 1390 They claimed that it was not necessary for Mr James Evans, as adviser to the applicants, and Mr Page and Mr Knightley, two of the three individual journalist applicants, to attend the Commission hearings. The Court expressed a contrary opinion. It therefore accepted, as necessary, the whole of this item, which relates to expenses occasioned by the attendance of these three persons and of Mr Whitaker. 1391 Sixth, the Court will only award such satisfaction as is considered to be ‘just’ ( équitable in the French text) in the circumstances. 1392 Consequently, regard must be made to the particular features of each case. This is why it happens that in similar cases, which concern a breach of the same provision of the Convention, the amount of just satisfaction may be different. For example, in both cases Agrokompleks v. Ukraine 1393 and East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , 1394 the Court dealt with a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the second case, it also held that there had been an infringement of Article 13 of the Convention. Nevertheless, in the first case, Ukraine had to pay the applicant company the sum of EUR 27,000,000 (twenty-seven million euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In the case of East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , the awarded amount in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, constituted only EUR 5,000,000 (five million euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company. This divergence may be explained by the fact that the circumstances of each case were different. Seventh, in determining the amount of compensation, the Court may decide to take guidance from standards of national law. 1395 It is, however, never bound by them. In the case of Agrokompleks v. Ukraine the Court mentioned in particular “In establishing the pecuniary damage flowing from violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of setting aside a final judicial decision in an applicant’s favour contrary to the res judicata principle, the Court’s traditional approach has been to award the applicant the sum which he/she would have received had the judgment in question not been quashed, deducting the subsequent domestic award if there had been any.” 1396 With regard to the different types of just satisfaction, additional conditions may be envisaged. For example when calculating the costs and expenses, the applicant 1390 The Sunday Times (no. 1) (Article 50), cited above, § 15. 1391 Ibid. , § 31. 1392 Article 2 of the Practice Directions on Just satisfaction claims. Rules of Court incorporates amendments to Rule 47 made by the Plenary Court on 6 May 2013, cited above. 1393 Agrokompleks (just satisfaction) , cited above. 1394 East West Alliance Limited, cited above. 1395 Article 3 of the Just satisfaction claims (Practice Directions). 1396 No. 23465/03, § 83, 25 July 2013.

271