Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment regarding the case of the Federation of Trade Unions of Chernihiv Region v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a complaint by the Federation of Trade Unions of Chernihiv Region that it was deprived of property it had owned as a successor to a Soviet-era trade union. The Court previously found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the annulment of the organization’s property title. This judgment addresses the issue of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, specifically regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. Following a review of the case by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the applicant organization’s property title was restored. The Court awarded the applicant organization compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** This section outlines the background of the case, referring to the initial judgment where a violation was found. It details the applicant’s claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. It also mentions the Court’s decision to reserve the question of Article 41 and invite further observations from both parties.
* **The Law:** This section quotes Article 41 of the Convention, which provides the basis for just satisfaction.
* **New developments and the parties’ updated observations:** This part summarizes the developments in the case after the initial judgment, including the Supreme Court’s review and the restoration of the applicant’s property title. It also presents the updated positions of both the applicant organization and the Ukrainian government regarding the claims for just satisfaction.
* **The Court’s assessment:** This section contains the Court’s analysis and decisions regarding the claims for damage and costs. It addresses pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses, and default interest.
* **Damage:** The Court acknowledges that the restoration of the property title eliminates the need for pecuniary damage compensation. However, it awards EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, considering the circumstances of the case and the violation found in the principal judgment.
* **Costs and expenses:** The Court awards EUR 2,500 for legal assistance before the Court, EUR 1,000 for legal representation before the Supreme Court, and EUR 660 for the property valuation report.
* **Default interest:** The Court specifies that default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment concludes by ordering Ukraine to pay the specified amounts for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, along with default interest, within three months. It dismisses the remaining claims for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage to Organizations:** The decision reinforces the principle that commercial entities can be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage, considering factors like reputational harm, uncertainty in decision-making, and disruption to management.
* **Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses:** The judgment clarifies the criteria for reimbursing costs and expenses, emphasizing that they must be actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable in amount.
* **Impact of Domestic Review:** The decision highlights how a successful review of a case at the domestic level, following a judgment by the ECtHR, can affect the assessment of just satisfaction, particularly regarding pecuniary damage.
****
This decision is related to Ukraine, as the case concerns a Ukrainian organization and the Ukrainian government. The judgment clarifies the principles of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, which is relevant for Ukrainian legal practice and for Ukrainian citizens and organizations seeking redress from the European Court of Human Rights.
