NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

In its case-law, the Court noted that specific criteria govern the granting of compensation for non-pecuniary loss to Article 34 NGOs . 1429 In this context, it is necessary to take into account the reputation of the legal person, uncertainty in planning and decision-making, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the management of the company. 1430 When awarding just satisfaction, the Court in some cases rules that the respondent state has to pay the applicant the total sum in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 1431 It, therefore, may seem unclear whether the company suffered non pecuniary loss in particular. In the other cases, the Court clearly specifies an amount for a compensation of pecuniary loss and separately awards reimbursement for non pecuniary harm. 1432 In exceptional circumstances, it decides to award only sums for non-pecuniary damage. 1433 Karen Reid writes that in determining the specific amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Court takes into account the living index of the CoE Member States. 1434 She adds that it recently revised its internal scales to make them more appropriate. Therefore, the sums of awards since 2009 are significantly higher than in previous years. Confirmation of these words can be seen in a recent judgment of the Court, when it awarded Article 34 NGOs with amounts of a few million, 1435 and even a billion, euros. 1436 3.2.3.3 Costs and expenses The Court may order the reimbursement to the applicant of costs and expenses, which were incurred in the course of the proceedings. 1437 The compensation includes awards for both the proceedings at the domestic level and subsequently the proceedings before the Court itself. The important criterion is that the costs must only be related to those proceedings that followed an aim to prevent the violation of the Convention from occurring, or in trying to obtain redress thereafter. 1438 1429 Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo (just satisfaction), cited above. 1430 Dacia S.R.L. (just satisfaction), cited above, § 60; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 48553/99, § 79, 2 October 2003; Comingersoll [GC], cited above, § 35; Immobiliare Cerro S.A.S. (just satisfaction), cited above, § 22; and Forminster Enterprises Limited (just satisfaction), cited above, § 25. 1431 Agrokompleks (just satisfaction) , cited above. 1432 Sovtransavto Holding (just satisfaction), cited above; Immobiliare Cerro S.A.S. (just satisfaction), cited above. 1433 Greco-Catholic Parish Sfântul Vasile Polonă v. Romania , no. 65965/01, § 119, 7 April 2009. 1434 REID, 2012, cited above, p. 849. 1435 East West Alliance Limited, cited above; Agrokompleks (just satisfaction) , cited above, and Dacia S.R.L. (just satisfaction), cited above. 1436 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above. 1437 DRAFT – OVA a.s. v. Slovakia , no. 72493/10, § 102, 9 June 2015. 1438 Article 16 of the Practice Directions on Just satisfaction claims. Rules of Court incorporates amendments

277