BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Trévalec v. Belgium - 30812/07 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 811 (25 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/811.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 811 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164
June 2013
Trévalec v. Belgium - 30812/07
Judgment 25.6.2013 See: [2013] ECHR 585 [Section II]
Article 41
Just satisfaction
Direction that a Contracting State, not party to the proceedings, should not claim back compensation it had paid to applicant out of sum awarded against respondent State in respect of non-pecuniary damage
Facts - In a judgment on the merits of 14 June 2011 (see Information Note 142), the Court had found that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its substantive head on the ground that Belgium had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect the right to life of the applicant, a French national who had sustained severe injuries, and had reserved the question of just satisfaction. The applicant had obtained from the French compensation fund for victims of terrorism and other offences (the CIVI) a significant sum covering both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for which Belgium had been found responsible in that judgment.
Law - Article 41: The Court found reasonable the CIVI’s award in respect of pecuniary damage. As to the non-pecuniary damage and in the circumstances of the case, the Court considered it appropriate to award the applicant an additional EUR 50,000. Noting that the compensation fund would be entitled to ask the applicant to reimburse part of the amount that he had been paid in so far as it corresponded to the amount of the Court’s award, the Court found that it was fair to stipulate that the said amount should not be claimed back from him.
