NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

3.3.2 Analysis of the awards As we see in all the top judgments, the Court declared a violation of the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The second most frequent type of violation concerns the fair trial guarantees as envisaged by Article 6 of the Convention. It is possible to conclude that such huge amounts of award were based on the initial capital of Article 34 NGOs in question. The higher the amount of the property deprived, the higher is the sum awarded by the Court. From the table, it is also clear that the majority of judgments are given in cases against so called ‘new member states’, who became party to the Convention in the 1990s, namely Russia, Ukraine and Moldova. Although, before ratification of this treaty by the mentioned states, namely, in 1987, the highest amount of compensation was claimed by the Greek company. It is also true that, except for the Stran Greek Refineries , most of the judgments were issued in the last seven years. Moreover, in this judicial act, the just satisfaction was awarded to an individual and an Article 34 NGO together. Consequently, it is not clear what amount was paid to the last one. Not all of the applicants were domestic companies. For example, in the case of East West Alliance against Ukraine , 1490 an Irish company lodged the application with the Court. Similarly, in Unistar Ventures GmbH case , 1491 as it can be seen from the title, a German company filed the submission. Based on this observation, we may speak of a so-called protection of foreign investors by means of the Convention system. This is also true for the Yukos case, 1492 where many natural persons from abroad were among the shareholders of the company who received the just satisfaction award. In respect of the interrelationship between the claims and just satisfaction awards, it may be seen from the table that the awarded amount constitutes from 1% to 95% of the claimed compensation. The data are imprecise, as in respect of some awards it was very difficult, or even impossible, to make the necessary calculation. For example, in the already mentioned case of Stran Greek Refineries , 1493 the award was set forth in a number of different currencies and to convert all of them into euros is impossible, because it was made in 1997, when the euro did not exist in 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 Article 34 NGOs concerned, but to their lawyers 1494 and even a special foundation, in the Yukos case . 1495 Regarding the non-pecuniary damage awards, it must be noted that in five out of the ten top judgments the Court awarded these damages separately. 1496 In the other three cases, it awarded a lump sum in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary

1490 East West Alliance Limited, cited above. 1491 Unistar Ventures GmbH, cited above. 1492 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction) , cited above. 1493 Stran Greek Refineries, cited above. 1494 Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH , cited above, § 78. 1495 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 50.

1496 Unistar Ventures GmbH , cited above; Dacia S.R.L. (just satisfaction), cited above; Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v. Cyprus (just satisfaction), cited above; Oferta Plus S.R.L. (just satisfaction), cited above, and Immobiliare Cerro S.A.S. (just satisfaction), cited above.

291