275 / 464
261
THE HIGHEST AMOUNTS OF JUST SATISFACTION…
The eighth place in the list belongs to the East/West Alliance Ltd., an Irish
company based in Dublin with a representative office in Ukraine,
39
which lodged a
complaint against Ukraine. The Court found violations of A 1 P-1 and Article 13
of the Convention due to the fact that the seizure and sale of commercial airplanes
owned by the company was not in compliance with the law. The respondent state was
obliged to pay the applicant company, within three months of the date on which the
judgment became final,
EUR 5,000,000
(five million euros) in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
company.
Unistar Ventures GmbH, a company incorporated in Germany, holds the seventh
place.
40
The applicant company complained of a breach of the Convention because
of the non-enforcement of a judgment which ordered the restitution of the applicant
company’s investment. The Court ruled that Moldova, at the rate applicable on the
date of settlement, had to compensate
EUR 6,700,000
(six million, seven hundred
thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and a few thousand euros in respect
of non-pecuniary damage, including costs and expenses.
The Moldovan registered company, Dacia S.R.L.,
41
which submitted to the Court
a complaint against the state of its registered office, is in sixth place. In this case, the
Court again held that there had been a violation of the applicant company’s rights
provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and A 1 P-1. The violations were
the result of the annulment of the privatisation of the applicant company’s hotel,
in breach of the principles of equality of arms and legal certainty. It ordered that
the respondent state was to return to the applicant company the Dacia hotel and
its equipment, together with the underlying land. If the restitution of the hotel in
question failed, Moldova was obliged to compensate
EUR 7,237,700
(seven million,
two hundred and thirty seven thousand, seven hundred euros).
The next, and fifth, in the Top 10 is the case of
Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v.
Cyprus
.
42
The applicant in the present case was a Cypriot registered company. It owned
immovable property located near the seaside in Limassol (Cyprus). The decision to
acquire this property was given in 1972, but the transfer took place only in 1995.
According to the Court, the expropriation proceedings and the small amount of
compensation paid more than 30 years after the start of proceedings had violated
the company’s rights under A 1 P-1. The Court also concluded that there had been a
breach of Article 6 § 1 because the length of the proceedings, approximately 11 years,
was excessive. The just satisfaction award constituted almost
nine million euros
.
39
East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine,
no. 19336/04, § 1, 23 January 2014.
40
Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova
, no. 19245/03, 9 December 2008.
41
Dacia S.R.L.
(just satisfaction), cited above, § 1.
42
Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v. Cyprus
(just satisfaction), no. 31811/04, 14 April 2015.