In Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) ordered the Russian Federation to pay Georgia EUR 10 million as reparation for Russia's “coordinated policy of arresting, detaining and expelling Georgian nationals” in the autumn of 2006 (paras. 51, 80). In so doing, the Court reaffirmed its position from Cyprus v. Turkey (IV) (Just Satisfaction) that financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage can be awarded in interstate cases. Although Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction) marks the development of a new line of ECtHR jurisprudence, it is unlikely that the decision will effectively prevent further mass violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or Convention) by the states parties or offer fair compensation to the victims of such violations.

In a judgment rendered on May 12, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) ordered Turkey to pay Cyprus unprecedented sums for nonpecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of missing persons and by the “enclaved” Greek Cypriot residents of the Karpas Peninsula stemming from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and its aftermath. In doing so, the Court applied Article 41 on just satisfaction of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention or Convention) to an interstate complaint for the first time.

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Freedom of expression — Restriction imposed by contempt of court proceedings on Applicants’ desire to publish information and comment on aspects of the drug thalidomide and its noxious and deforming effects — Whether restriction justifiable — Article 10

Whether Court had jurisdiction to consider not only English court injunction but also alleged continuing restraints caused by supposed overbreadth and lack of precision of English law of contempt — Jurisdiction limited to matters lodged with and accepted by the Commission

Question whether the interference with freedom of expression was “prescribed by law” — “Law” comprehends both legislation and “unwritten” law — Interpretation of a law-making treaty whose equally authentic versions are not exactly the same — Law must be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision for citizen to regulate his conduct — Despite measure of uncertainty in English law and divergent approaches thereto of English courts it was reasonably foreseeable that publication might fall foul of contempt law

Whether interference had aims which were legitimate under Article 10 (2) — Aim of maintaining the “authority of the judiciary” — This phrase comprises the machinery of justice as well as the judges in their official capacity

Question whether interference was “necessary in a democratic society” for maintaining the authority of the judiciary — Meaning of “necessary” — ”Margin of appreciation” afforded to Governmental authorities — Supervisory power not limited to ascertaining whether a respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith — Scope of domestic power of appreciation not identical as regards each aim listed in Article 10(2) — Contrast in that regard between Handyside case as to the aim of “protection of morals” and that before the Court — Authority of the judiciary a more objective notion — More extensive European supervision — International standards do not mean uniformity — Question whether Governmental action regarding the injunction corresponded to a “pressing social need” — Breadth of scope of the injunction — Nature of the proposed newspaper article — Overall context of the proposed publication — Discharge of injunction in 1976 — Questions prompted thereby — Need to balance public interest at large with the requirements of the fair administration of justice — Article 10 guarantees not only freedom of the press to inform the public but also the right of the public to be properly informed — Restraint not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued

Non-discrimination in respect of secured rights — No evidence of discrimination — Article 14

Improper use of restrictions — Issue not pursued — Article 18

Just satisfaction — Question not ready for decision — Article 50