NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

The Convention, for example, in Article 41, uses the term ‘just satisfaction’, which in accordance with the DARS would mean only acknowledgement of the breach without any financial redress. The analysis of the Court’s case-law, nevertheless, confirms that it may also take the form of restitution. For example, in the case of Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (just satisfaction), the Court required Moldova to re-establish the situation that existed before, namely to return to the applicant company the hotel that it lost due to the annulment of the hotel’s privatisation. 1302 In many cases the Court recognised the right of Article 34 NGOs to compensation, which in certain cases reached billions of euros. 1303 It was not a simple apology. Yet, only rarely has the Court ruled in its judgments that “the finding of a violation is sufficient to compensate for the damage sustained by the applicant company”, 1304 which would be an example of the satisfaction under the DARS. On the basis of this assessment, we would use the word ‘compensation’ in a wider meaning, covering any form of possible redress. While the DARS contains an explanation on the types of reparation, in view of its nature, the mechanism contained in the DARS is foreseen as applying only to states. Consequently, an organisation may not use this mechanism directly against a state. In 2011, the International Law Commission also adopted the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations , 1305 which regulates the international responsibility of an international organization and of a state for an internationally wrongful act in connection with the conduct of an international organization. The definitions of ‘reparation’, ‘compensation’, and ‘satisfaction’ given here are the same as in the DARS. But, again, this does not provide us with knowledge on the compensation mechanism, which is related to non-governmental organisations. On 16 December 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution No. 60/147 titled the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Basic Principles’). 1306 According to Principle VIII of the Basic Principles, the states should endeavour to develop procedures to allow groups of victims to present claims for reparations and to receive reparation, as appropriate. This means that group of persons, which could be alsoArticle 34NGOs, may employ thismechanism directly. Reparation under this document should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered. The Basic Principles also specify that in cases where a person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable, such party should provide reparation to the victim or compensate the state if it has already provided reparation to the victim. States are responsible for the establishment of national programmes for reparations and other assistance to victims of violations. While not diminishing the meaning of the Basic 1302 Dacia S.R.L., cited above, § 44. 1303 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 14902/04, 31 July 2014. 1304 RTBF, cited above, § 120. 1305 Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations . Yearbook of the International Law Commission , 2011, vol. II, Part Two. 1306 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations No. 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

256