CYIL 2015

282 / 464

268
ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
the market as a currency. Therefore, we used the first available conversation rate of
January 1999. Moreover, the cost and expense awards were not always set up for the
legal persons concerned but for their lawyers55 and, in the Yukos case,56 even a special
foundation.
Regarding non-pecuniary damage awards, it must be noted that in four out
of the ten top judgments the Court awarded these damages separately.57 In the
other three cases it awarded a lump sum in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.58 The applicants in the Yukos case 59 and Unistar Ventures GmbH case 60 did
not make claims in this respect. This means that in approximately seventy percent
of the mentioned cases the Court recognised the right to compensation of moral
damages of the applicant companies.
The most important point for the victims of breaches of the Convention is the
execution. Unfortunately, we have to admit that only the second place judgment was
executed in full.61 This is also the oldest judgment of the Court. The amount of just
satisfaction was also paid by Moldova to the German company, Unistar Ventures,
but the general measures were not complied with. Moreover, Moldova also returned
the hotel, the land plot and the equipment to the applicant instead of paying the just
satisfaction awarded in the case of Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova.62 On 5 September 2014
the action report on execution was submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the
Italian government. It was assessed and comments were sent to the authorities on
27 March 2015. The Moldovan government claimed that under the present Civil
Code of 2002 the possibility for state organisations to lodge a lawsuit concerning
restitution of property without time limit was abolished. An action plan in the case
of Dacia S.R.L., however, is awaited.
The Russian government submitted a request for the referral of the case to the
Grand Chamber. Conversely, it was rejected and the judgment in the Yukos case
became final on 15 December 2014.63 The Russian government, on 15 May 2013,
provided the Department for the Execution with an action plan in respect of the
judgments in the case on the merits. At its 1222nd meeting (March 2015) (DH),
55 Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, § 78, ECHR 2007-IV.
56 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 50.
57 Unistar Ventures GmbH, cited above; Dacia S.R.L. (just satisfaction), cited above; Michael Theodossiou
Ltd. v. Cyprus (just satisfaction), cited above; and Oferta Plus S.R.L. (just satisfaction), cited above.
58 East West Alliance Limited, cited above; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above; and Agrokompleks (just
satisfaction), cited above.
59 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 50.
60 Unistar Ventures GmbH, cited above.
61 All the information provided further in this section is taken from the website of the Execution
Department for the execution of the judgments of the European Court. URL:
dghl/monitoring/execution/default_en.asp. Data are valid on 1 July 2015.
62 Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (just satisfaction), cited above.
63 Press release. Forthcoming Grand Chamber Panel. 15 December 2014.