In today’s Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) (application no. 38263/08) the European Court of Human Rights examined the question of just satisfaction (Article 41).

According to the the Court, the case concerned allegations by the Georgian Government of administrative practices on the part of the Russian Federation entailing various breaches of the Convention, in connection with the armed conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008:

"In today’s Grand Chamber judgment concerning the question of just satisfaction, the Court held, unanimously:

- that it had jurisdiction under Article 58 of the Convention to deal with the applicant Government’s claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention notwithstanding the cessation of the Russian Federation’s membership of the Council of Europe, and that the respondent Government’s failure to cooperate did not present an obstacle to their examination;

- that Article 41 of the Convention was applicable to the present case in respect of the victims of the administrative practice of killing of civilians in Georgian villages in South Ossetia and in the “buffer zone”, the victims of the administrative practice of torching and looting of houses in the “buffer zone”, the victims of the administrative practice of inhuman and degrading treatment and arbitrary detention of Georgian civilians held by the South Ossetian forces in the basement of the “Ministry of Internal Affairs of South Ossetia” in Tskhinvali between approximately 10 and 27 August 2008, the victims of the administrative practice of torture of Georgian prisoners of war detained by the South Ossetian forces in Tskhinvali between 8 and 17 August 2008, the victims of the administrative practice of preventing the return of Georgian nationals to their respective homes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the victims of the respondent Government’s failure to comply with their procedural obligation to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the deaths which had occurred during the active phase of the hostilities or after the cessation of hostilities;

- that the respondent State was to pay the applicant Government, within three months, EUR 3,250,000 (three million two hundred and fifty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 50 victims of the administrative practice of killing of civilians in Georgian villages in South Ossetia and in the “buffer zone” and of the respondent Government’s failure to comply with their procedural obligation to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into those killings;

- that the respondent State was to pay the applicant Government, within three months, EUR 2,697,500 (two million six hundred and ninety-seven thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 166 victims of the administrative practice of inhuman and degrading treatment and arbitrary detention of Georgian civilians held by the South Ossetian forces in the basement of the “Ministry of Internal Affairs of South Ossetia” in Tskhinvali between approximately 10 and 27 August 2008;

- that the respondent State was to pay the applicant Government, within three months, EUR 640,000 (six hundred and forty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 16 victims of the administrative practice of torture of Georgian prisoners of war detained by the South Ossetian forces in Tskhinvali between 8 and 17 August 2008;

- that the respondent State was to pay the applicant Government, within three months, EUR 115,000,000 (one hundred and fifteen million euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 23,000 victims of the administrative practice of preventing the return of Georgian nationals to their respective homes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; and

- that the respondent State was to pay the applicant Government, within three months, EUR 8,240,000 (eight million two hundred and forty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 412 victims of the respondent Government’s failure to comply with their procedural obligation to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the deaths which had occurred during the active phase of the hostilities.

The Court also dismissed, by nine votes to eight, the remainder of the applicant Government’s claims for just satisfaction.

Article 46

The Court noted that Article 46 required the Committee of Ministers to put in place an effective mechanism for the implementation of the Court’s judgments, including in cases against a State which had ceased to be a Party to the Convention. It observed in that connection that the Committee of Ministers continued to supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments against the Russian Federation, and that the Russian Federation was required, pursuant to Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, to implement them, despite the cessation of its membership of the Council of Europe."