NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

filed a complaint together with its sole shareholder, Mr Stratis Andreadis. 1504 In the case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy, the second applicant was Mr Francescantonio Di Stefano, the statutory representative of the applicant company. 1505 In the Yukos case the applicant legal person at the moment of rendering of the Court’s judgment ceased to exist. Therefore, Russia has to pay the just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant company’s shareholders as they stood at the time of the company’s liquidation. 1506 Given that, it would be of interest to compare the sums awarded by the Court to natural persons and Article 34 NGOs. 3.3.3 Why Article 34 NGOs receive more than individuals The given examples show that, by lodging a complaint with the Court, Article 34 NGOs have a chance to obtain a considerable amount of compensation. Individual applicants, if we do not consider Mr Stratis Andreadis to be an example of such a person, have never received such particularly huge amounts of compensation. One of the highest amounts awarded to a natural person in respect of a breach of the right to life, which is the most important guarantee under the Convention, was an amount of EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand euros) in the case of Gongadze v. Ukraine . 1507 On the other hand, the amounts claimed and awarded to individuals under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention may also be higher. 1508 For example, in the case of Hirschhorn v. Romania , 1509 the respondent state was obliged to return the building to the applicant or, failing that, to pay him EUR 1,900,000 (one million, nine hundred thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damages. In the case of Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, three natural person applicants were awarded EUR 2,145,000 (two million one hundred and forty-five thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage; 1510 EUR 45,000 (forty-five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros) for costs and expenses. The royal family of the former King of Greece was awarded more than 12 million euros by the Court’s judgment of 2002. 1511 Given the different material basis of legal and natural persons, it becomes clear that for the Court, the rights of Article 34 NGOs are not more important than the rights of natural persons. They just lose more, and consequently, the awards are higher. In some circumstances as we see in the examples given above, individuals may receive as high awards as legal persons. It is possible to say, almost for sure, that the authors of the Convention, when writing the Convention, did not plan to compensate the financial risks of corporations. 1504 Stran Greek Refineries, cited above, § 6. 1505 Centro Europa 7 S.r.l., cited above, § 8. 1506 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (just satisfaction), cited above, § 43. 1507 Gongadze v. Ukraine , no. 34056/02, § 198, ECHR 2005-XI. 1508 Draon v. France (just satisfaction – striking out) [GC], no. 1513/03, ECHR 2006-IX. 1509 Hirschhorn v. Romania , no. 29294/02, § 117, 26 July 2007. 1510 Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, §§ 107-107, 22 December 2009. 1511 Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (just satisfaction), no. 25701/94, § 100, 28 November 2002.

293