272 / 464
258
ALLA TYMOFEYEVA
CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
the hotel which was lost by the company due to the annulment of the hotel’s
privatisation.
17
In many cases the Court ruled that the pecuniary damage of legal
persons shall be compensated.
18
On a rare occasion the Court concluded that “the
finding of a violation is sufficient to compensate for the damage sustained by the
applicant company”.
19
As we see, by the phrase ‘just satisfaction’, the Court means all
forms of reparation, from restitution, through compensation, to satisfaction.
In view of these inconsistencies, in this manuscript the word ‘compensation’
will be used further in a wider meaning, covering any form of possible redress and
synonymous to ‘just satisfaction’. The next part of the paper will cover the last notion,
aiming to explain the elements of just satisfaction awards and its particularities.
1. Just satisfaction under the Convention
Article 41 of the Convention authorizes the Court to afford the injured party
just satisfaction which appears to it to be appropriate. This means that a judgment in
which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the
respondent state a legal obligation to pay the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction.
20
Nonetheless, it does not signify that an applicant has a right to compensation. It is
upon the Court to decide whether to award just satisfaction. Moreover, only the Court
may decide on the amount to be paid, no matter how high the financial loses of an
applicant company were. It may decide on the compensation in a judgment on the
merits directly or in a separate judgment including the expression ‘just satisfaction’ in
the title.
21
It must be noted that the compensation mechanism provided by the Convention
is one of the most elaborated instruments in the international system of reparation
in the world.
22
The key to its success is the obligatory force of the Court’s judgments
and the effective work of the Committee of Ministers, which plays the role of the
17
Ibid
., § 44.
18
Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine
(just satisfaction), no. 48553/99, 2 October 2003;
Sud Fondi srl and
Others v. Italy
(just satisfaction), no. 75909/01, 10 May 2012; and
Temel Conta Sanayi Ve Ticaret A. Ş.
v. Turkey
(just satisfaction), no. 45651/04, 14 September 2010.
19
RTBF v. Belgium
, no. 50084/06, § 120, ECHR 2011 (extracts).
20
Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine,
no. 21722/11, § 193, ECHR 2013.
21
Agrokompleks v. Ukraine
(just satisfaction)
,
no. 23465/03, 25 July 2013;
Agurdino S.R.L. v. the Republic
of Moldova
(just satisfaction), no. 7359/06, 29 October 2013;
Immobiliare Cerro S.A.S. v. Italy
(just
satisfaction), no. 35638/03, 5 June 2012;
Immobiliare Podere Trieste S.r.l. v. Italy
(just satisfaction), no.
19041/04, 23 October 2012 and
Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo and Others v. the Czech
Republic
(just satisfaction), no. 74152/01, 19 January 2012.
22
The comparison on the different mechanisms of compensation may be found in a grand study
ŠTURMA, P.,
Compensation in international law
. Studies in International Law. No. 5 (28). Prague:
Charles University in Prague, 2013. As to mechanism of compensation under the Convention see
TYMOFEYEVA, A., BLŠŤÁKOVÁ, T., Just satisfaction under the European Convention on Human
Rights. In
Compensation in international law
. Studies in International Law. No. 5 (28). Prague: Charles
University in Prague, 2013, p. 119.