40633/15

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS OF CHERNIHIV REGION v. UKRAINE (Application no. 40633/15)             JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 9 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Federation of Trade Unions of Chernihiv Region v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Gilberto Felici, President,  Mykola Gnatovskyy,  Vahe Grigoryan, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case concerns the applicant organisation’s complaint, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that it had been deprived of property that it had owned for decades as the legal successor to a Soviet-era regional trade union organisation. 2.  In a judgment delivered on 9 January 2025 (Federation of Trade Unions of Chernihiv Region v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 40633/15, 9 January 2025; “the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the annulment of the applicant organisation’s title to a property in court proceedings instituted against it by the prosecutor (ibid. § 33; see also point 2 of the operative provisions). 3.  Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant organisation initially claimed 22,339,404 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH; equivalent to approximately 718,043 euros (EUR) according to the applicant organisation’s calculations) in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to the value of the building to which it had lost its title. That amount was based on a one-page valuation report, dated 20 October 2008, which had been commissioned by the applicant organisation for unknown purposes. It further claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, it claimed UAH 21,808.53 (equivalent to approximately EUR 701 according to the applicant organisation’s calculations) in respect of costs and expenses incurred during the domestic proceedings (as per the final judgment in its case) and UAH 160,000 in legal fees for its representation before the Court. 4.  Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the parties to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (see Federation of Trade Unions of Chernihiv Region, cited above, § 37, and point 3(b) of the operative provisions). The above-mentioned delay was extended on several occasions. 5.  The parties then provided information about new developments in the case and updated their observations in respect of Article 41. THE LAW 6.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”         New developments and the parties’ updated observations 7.  On 1 April 2025 the Government informed the Court that the applicant organisation had applied to the Supreme Court for a review of its case in the light of the Court’s findings made in the principal judgment. They stated that the issue of application of Article 41 depended on the outcome of those review proceedings. 8.  On 9 April 2025 the applicant organisation informed the Court that if the Supreme Court of Ukraine were to allow its application for review of the case at the domestic level following the Court’s principal judgment and to adopt a new judgment rejecting the prosecutor’s claim against it, it would withdraw its claims in respect of pecuniary damage. Otherwise, the pecuniary damage would amount to UAH 27,401,976 (equivalent to approximately EUR 1,171,753 according to the applicant organisation’s calculations), which was the value of the premises at the time of their reclamation in 2015 as established in a new property valuation report dated 3 March 2025, which had been prepared by a certified expert. 9.  The applicant organisation also reiterated its claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for its representation before the Court (see paragraph 3 above). 10.  Additionally, the applicant organisation claimed UAH 200,000 (equivalent to approximately EUR 4,440) for its representation before the Supreme Court in the review proceedings (paid on 6 March 2025) in accordance with the legal aid contract signed between the applicant organisation and Mr Lishchyna. It also claimed UAH 30,000 (equivalent to approximately EUR 660), paid on 10 March 2025, for the cost of the property valuation report mentioned in paragraph 8 above. 11.  On 15 October 2025 the Government informed the Court that on that day the Supreme Court had allowed the application for the review of the case, set aside previous court decisions and adopted a new judgment rejecting the prosecutor’s claim against the applicant organisation. The applicant organisation’s title to the disputed property had thus been restored. 12.  The Government submitted that the issue of pecuniary damage had therefore been settled. In that connection, they also considered “settled” the above-mentioned amount of UAH 30,000 which had been paid for the new property valuation report. 13.  They further asked the Court to reject, as excessive and unsubstantiated, the applicant organisation’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As regards the costs incurred before the Court, the Government also considered them excessive, particularly as the amount of UAH 160,000 had been cited as the cost for the preparation of observations only and did not cover the initial submission of the application. They referred, in that connection, to Belousov v. Ukraine (no. 4494/07, §§ 113-17, 7 November 2013). 14.  The Government asserted that the applicant organisation’s claims for just satisfaction were unsubstantiated in their totality. 15.  On 20 October 2025 the applicant organisation was informed of the Government’s position.       The Court’s assessment   Damage 16.  The Court notes that, following the review of its case at the domestic level, the applicant organisation’s title to the property it had been deprived of in 2015 was restored. Considering that in its submissions the applicant organisation clearly stated that in such a case it would withdraw its claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court considers that there is no call for an award under this head (see Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 5876/15, § 11, 3 September 2020). 17.  As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that it cannot exclude the possibility that a commercial company may be awarded pecuniary compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In this context account should be taken of the company’s reputation, uncertainty in decision making, disruption to the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see, for example, Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000‑IV; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 48553/99, § 79, 2 October 2003; and Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. 3052/04, § 60, 24 February 2009). 18.  Considering the circumstances of the present case and its finding of violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the principal judgment, the Court awards the applicant organisation EUR 3,000 (see, as recent examples in similar cases, Vallesinella S.A.S v. Italy [Committee], no. 35333/10, § 27, 23 October 2025, and Firm Niyal v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 12748/13, § 27, 23 September 2025).    Costs and expenses 19.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no. 49812/09, § 167, 3 November 2022). In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant organisation the sum of EUR 2,500 for the cost of legal assistance incurred before the Court. 20.  It also awards the applicant organisation the amount of EUR 1,000 for the legal representation before the Supreme Court and EUR 660 for the preparation of the valuation report of March 2025 (see Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), no. 21743/15, §§ 36-38, 2 April 2024, and Dolenc v. Slovenia (just satisfaction), no. 20256/20, §§ 24-26, 20 October 2022; contrast Budivelno Investytsiyna Grupa 1 v. Ukraine (just satisfaction), no. 56903/10, 11 January 2024). 21.  The total award under this head therefore amounts to EUR 4,160.    Default interest 22.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate payable on the above amounts should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant organisation, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:  EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;   EUR 4,160 (four thousand one hundred and sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant organisation, in respect of costs and expenses;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;      Dismisses the remainder of the applicant organisation’s claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Martina Keller Gilberto Felici  Deputy Registrar President