NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

damage. 1497 The applicants in the Yukos case 1498 and Unistar Ventures GmbH case 1499 did not make claims in this respect. It means that in approximately eighty 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 Convention breaches is the execution. Unfortunately, we have to admit that only the second place judgment was executed in full. 1500 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 . 1501 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. 1502 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), the Committee of Ministers took note that by 15 June 2015 the Russian authorities were to produce a comprehensive action plan, including a binding time frame, for the distribution of the just satisfaction awarded in respect of pecuniary damage. 1503 It was decided to resume consideration of this case at its 1236th meeting (September 2015) (DH) at the latest. In view of the huge amount of the award, however, there is a great probability that this judgment of the Court will not be executed in full in the nearest few years. Apart from execution, it has to be noted that in a few of these top cases the judgment at issue concerned not only legal, but also natural persons. This was already mentioned in respect of Stran Greek Refineries case, where the applicant company 1497 East West Alliance Limited, cited above; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above; and Agrokompleks (just satisfaction) , cited above. 1498 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 50. 1499 Unistar Ventures GmbH, cited above. 1500 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: http://www.coe.int/t/ dghl/monitoring/execution/default_en.asp. Data are valid on 1 July 2015. 1501 Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (just satisfaction), cited above. 1502 Press release. Forthcoming Grand Chamber Panel. 15 December 2014. 1503 1222 meeting (10-12 March 2015) (DH) – Communication from the applicant’s representative (26/02/2015) in the case of OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos against Russian Federation (Application No. 14902/04).

292