NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

The next frequently related question is that of whether the state may, in this kind of situation, use its ordinary right as a creditor to designate the compensation for the settlement of any debts the applicant has to the state, thereby obtaining priority over all other creditors, including the applicant’s lawyer. This question relates to the possibility of attaching the just satisfaction. The main criterion here is whether the applicant incurred the debt as a result of the violation recognised by the judgment. There is no clear Committee of Ministers’ practice with regard to the possibility of attachment, for the benefit of the state, of the sums awarded for the damage. Depending on the circumstances, the sums awarded to the applicant have on occasion been declared free from attachment, 1470 whereas on other occasions, they have been declared not to be. 1471 If the company ceased to exist in the course of the proceedings before the Court, its shareholders will receive the compensation awarded. In the case of OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia , 1472 the application was lodged with the Court by OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (‘the applicant company’). The Court observed that the applicant company ceased to exist and decided that the amount of just satisfation should be paid by the Russian government “to the applicant company’s shareholders and their legal successors and heirs, as the case may be, in proportion to their nominal participation in the company’s stock (see, mutatis mutandis , Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), nos. 412/03 and 35677/04, § 39, 16 September 2010; Sophia Andreou v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 18360/91, §§ 33-38, 22 June 2010; and Lordos and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 15973/90, §§ 61-70, 10 January 2012). In order to facilitate the Government’s task, the Court referred to the list of the applicant company’s shareholders, as they stood at the time of the company’s liquidation, which was held by ZAO VTB Registrator, the company which had held and ran the register of the applicant company.” 1473 This case is also of interest from the point of view of the fact that the just satisfaction award, under the cost and expenses heading, was assigned to the Yukos International Foundation, a Netherlands-based foundation, which was created by Yukos with a view to distributing to its shareholders any funds it would receive. It was neither a liquidator, nor a legal representative of the applicant company. The final part of the current book will explore a specific issue, which is connected to a just satisfaction award to Article 34 NGOs.The analysis of the case-law of the Court 1470 See the cases of F.W. Kremzow II (Application No. 13715/88, Interim Resolution of 19/10/1994) and F.W. Kremzow III (Application No. 15883/88, Interim resolution of 19/10/1994). In these cases, the Committee, by virtue of its authority under the former Article 32, ordered that the just satisfaction awarded for non-pecuniary damage be free from attachment. The information in taken from the Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just satisfaction: an overview of the Committee of Ministers’ present practice 15 January 2009. 1471 In the cases of Deixler v. Austria , Hengl v. Austria and Ververgaert v. The Netherlands , in which the sums awarded for non-pecuniary damage were seized to cover state debts. However, the amount granted for costs and expenses was not seized. The information in taken from the Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just satisfaction: an overview of the Committee of Ministers’ present practice 15 January 2009. 1472 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 1. 1473 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos , cited above, § 38.

283