CYIL 2015

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ The Italian limited liability company Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., obtained fourth position in the rating. 43 It was held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and A 1 P-1 in respect of state authorities’ failure to allocate radiofrequencies to the applicant company, being a licensed television broadcaster. The sum of compensation was EUR10,000,000 (tenmillion euros) in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The bronze award in the top three millionaire/billionaire cases goes to the Ukrainian company, Agrokompleks JSC. 44 The Court awarded it the total 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 principal judgment the Court found several violations of Article 6 of the Convention and A 1 P-1 due to miscarriage of justice in the insolvency proceedings initiated by the applicant company against a state-owned oil refinery. 45 Silver goes to a Greek private limited company, Stran Greek Refineries, and the latter’s sole shareholder, Mr Stratis Andreadis. 46 They were awarded compensation in a number of currencies totalling about 28 million euros . 47 The Court here again found a violation of Article 6 and A 1 P-1. The breach concerned annulment by legislative measure of an arbitration award establishing the existence of a debt owed by the state and inability to secure enforcement of this award. The leader in the list is undoubtedly the Yukos case . 48 Here, for the first time in its history, the Court awarded a sum to an applicant exceeding a billion euro, to be precise EUR 1,866,104,634 (one billion, eight hundred sixty six million, one hundred and four thousand, six hundred thirty four euros) in respect of pecuniary damage. The provisions of the Convention that were breached here were the same as in the other cases – the fair trial guarantees and the right to property. In particular, the state bailiffs uncompromisingly executed tax debts and imposed disproportionate fees resulting in a major company’s demise. The higher the amount of the claim, the higher the standard of proof. 49 In the table given below, the main data on the research in question are summarised under the date, type of a breach of the Convention, all four elements of the just satisfaction award and the state of execution. 43 Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 1, ECHR 2012. 44 Agrokompleks (just satisfaction) , cited above, § 1. 45 Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, 6 October 2011. 46 Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B. 47 See the table below. 48 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 14902/04, 31 July 2014. 49 ICHIM, O. Just Satisfaction under the European Convention on Human Rights . Cambridge: CUP, 2014, p. 99.

262