CYIL vol. 7 (2016)

491

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ NONǧGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION…

Let us just mention several categories of damages for which there exists no equivalent

in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, such as financial loss to

family, collective damages, transformative reparations, damage to the victim’s “life

project” (

proyecto de vida

etc., and which are the result of the “inventive spirit”

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Furthermore, I am not so convinced by Tymofeyeva’s suggestion that it would

be useful to draw up “tables with average amounts of compensation provided by the

Court under each type of violation” (p. 294). As observed in point 2 of the Court’s

Practice Direction on Just satisfaction claims, the issue is considered by the Court

on a case by case basis. Also, the Court’s guiding principle in this matter is “equity,

which above all involves flexibility and an objective consideration of what is just, fair

and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, including not only the position of

the applicant but the overall context in which the breach occurred”.

In such a situation,

any table could give rise to vain expectations or unrealistic claims. I would rather agree

here with Karen Reid

saying that “The Court has not proved unduly generous in its

approach to awarding compensation under any of the heads. The emphasis is not on

providing a mechanism for enriching successful applicants but rather its role in making

public and binding findings of applicable human rights standards”.

In sum, the book succeeds in reminding us of the very important and diverse roles

played by the NGOs in the proceedings before the Court. It provides a comprehensive

collation and commentary on the relevant practice of the Court, situating it in

the broader context of international human rights law. Admittedly, Tymofeyeva’s

monograph is not the most concise insight into the subject. It is rather elaborative

but readable and includes a deep immersion in the case-law of the Court. As such,

it will be of use in particular to human rights practitioners, human rights activists,

academics and students.

Irena Marková *

See, e.g.,

Cantoral Benavides v. Peru

, Reparations and costs, IACHR Series C No 88, 3rd December 2001.

Burgorgue-Larsen, L., Úbeda de Torres, A.: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case law and

Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 228.

See

Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom

[GC], no. 27021/08, § 114, ECHR 2011.

Reid, K.: A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (London : Sweet &

Maxwell, 1998), p. 398.

Irena Marková

during her professional activity at the Registry of the European Court of Human

Rights, she delivered a number of lectures and trainings on the Convention and contributed to the

translation into Czech of numerous Court’s judgments.