Introduction
As we explained in our earlier article, How to Bring a Case to the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECtHR” or “Court”), a successful ECtHR judgment may result in just satisfaction (compensation) and may require individual measures, which may include reopening domestic proceedings where necessary to achieve restitutio in integrum, that is, to restore the applicant, so far as possible, to the position occupied before the violation. The Court may also indicate general measures requiring the State to prevent similar violations in the future.
What is less well understood is that a successful ECtHR judgment is often a starting point for further legal work, not an endpoint. The Court does not act as a court of appeal. It cannot quash domestic judgments or substitute its own decision for that of the national courts. Its judgments are primarily declaratory: they establish that the State has violated the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”), but implementation of the judgment – including payment of just satisfaction, adoption of individual measures and, where necessary, general reforms – takes place within the domestic legal order under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers.
This article explains what happens next – the enforcement and implementation of ECtHR judgments – with a particular focus on the Ukrainian legal framework, though the general principles apply across Council of Europe member States.
When Execution Begins
A Chamber judgment becomes final when the three-month period for requesting referral to the Grand Chamber expires without a request being made (or when such a request is rejected). A Grand Chamber judgment is final from delivery. Once final, the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to execute the judgment is triggered. This is a binding legal obligation under international law, supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
The Committee of Ministers: Supervision in Practice
The Committee of Ministers, assisted by the Department for the Execution of Judgments, supervises execution. Committee of Ministers supervision continues until the case is closed by a final resolution. In practice, the process works as follows:
The respondent State is expected to submit an “action plan” to the Committee of Ministers no later than six months after a judgment becomes final, setting out the measures planned or already taken. Once all measures are complete, it submits an “action report.” Unlike the action plan, no fixed statutory deadline applies to the action report, although the Committee’s indicative timetables typically anticipate a final report proposing closure within a comparable timeframe once the State confirms that all measures have been taken. The Committee then assesses whether the measures constitute full execution.
During supervision, applicants, NGOs, and national human rights institutions may submit Rule 9 communications commenting on the adequacy of execution measures.
Since 2011, the Committee has operated a twin-track system. Most cases follow the “standard procedure” (written exchanges between the State and the Secretariat). An “enhanced procedure” applies to cases requiring urgent individual measures or revealing structural problems – including pilot judgments. For example, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (2009) and the Burmych group (2017), concerning the systemic non-enforcement of domestic court judgments in Ukraine, were placed under enhanced supervision because of the structural nature of the problem.
States retain discretion regarding the means of execution, but where compliance fails, the Committee may adopt interim resolutions or – in extreme cases – refer the matter back to the Court under Article 46 § 4 (infringement proceedings). Interim resolutions allow the Committee publicly to express concern about delays or inadequate implementation and may increase political pressure on the respondent State. This infringement procedure has been used twice to date. In December 2017, the Committee of Ministers referred Azerbaijan’s non-compliance with the Court’s judgment in Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan to the Grand Chamber, which, in its judgment of 29 May 2019, found that Azerbaijan had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 46 § 1. The procedure was used for a second time in Kavala v. Türkiye: on 2 February 2022, the Committee of Ministers referred Türkiye’s non-compliance with the Court’s judgment to the Court under Article 46 § 4, and on 11 July 2022 the Grand Chamber found that Türkiye had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 46 § 1.
Payment of Just Satisfaction
Just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention – pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses – is generally payable within three months of the judgment becoming final. Default interest accrues thereafter at a simple rate equal to the ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points, as set out in the Court’s Practice Direction on just satisfaction claims. Awards are normally in euros, converted at the exchange rate on the date of payment.
Just satisfaction is not automatic. The Court may decide that the finding of a violation is itself sufficient satisfaction, or that reopening of proceedings provides the appropriate remedy. If payment problems arise (non-payment, late payment, or partial payment), the applicant should raise these with the Committee of Ministers – not the Court itself.
In Ukraine, payment of just satisfaction is governed by the Law of Ukraine “On Execution of Judgments and Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights”. Under this Law, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine must within ten days of receiving notice that the judgment has attained the status of final, prepare and send for publication in the official newspaper “Uryadovyi Kurier” a summary of the judgment. Payment is made from the State Budget.
Reopening Domestic Proceedings
Beyond compensation, individual measures aim to achieve restitutio in integrum. This often requires reopening proceedings after an ECtHR judgment, restoration of property, release of a detainee, or reinstatement to a former position.
Reopening has been recognised as the most effective remedy. Under Recommendation No. R (2000) 2, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 January 2000, member States were invited to allow reopening where: (i) the applicant continues to suffer serious negative consequences not adequately remedied by compensation alone; and (ii) the ECtHR judgment shows that the domestic decision was either substantively contrary to the Convention, or vitiated by procedural errors casting serious doubt on the outcome.
In practice, reopening is available for criminal proceedings in the overwhelming majority of Council of Europe member States. For civil and administrative proceedings, it remains available only in approximately half of member States, often with significant limitations to protect res judicata and third-party interests.
Critically, the procedure varies by jurisdiction: whether an ECtHR judgment automatically triggers reopening or requires a separate application; which court is competent; who has standing; and what time limits apply. Applicants must understand the local framework before assuming that a favourable judgment in Strasbourg will translate into domestic reconsideration.
General Measures
Execution frequently requires general measures – legislative amendments, new domestic remedies, changes to administrative practices, or judicial training – to prevent recurrence of similar violations.
Where the violation stems from a systemic problem, the Court may issue a pilot judgment identifying the structural issue and directing specific reforms. The pilot judgment in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (2009), followed by the Grand Chamber judgment in Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (2017), illustrates this approach. Ivanov identified the structural problem of non-enforcement of domestic judgments, while Burmych transferred thousands of repetitive applications to the Committee of Ministers for supervision of execution. This led to years of supervision and reform efforts, including the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On State Guarantees for the Execution of Court Decisions” (Law No. 4901-VI of 2012).
The Ukrainian Framework
Ukraine provides a relatively developed statutory framework for execution of ECtHR judgments. The key instrument is the Law “On Execution of Judgments and Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights”, which recognises retrial as an additional individual measure for achieving restitutio in integrum.
In criminal proceedings, an ECtHR judgment finding a violation constitutes a ground for review of the case in “exceptional circumstances.” Applications are generally considered by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court’s practice shows important limitations: reopening is typically ordered only where the violation directly affected the question of guilt and criminal liability. Violations relating solely to excessive length of proceedings or conditions of pre-trial detention – while serious – are normally held not to justify reopening the final judgment on the merits, because they did not impact the court’s substantive conclusions.
In civil proceedings, Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (as amended during the 2017 judicial reform) expressly provides that a final decision may be reviewed in exceptional circumstances where an international judicial institution whose jurisdiction is recognised by Ukraine has found a violation. This mechanism is available, but in practice it is used sparingly – according to Supreme Court statistics, in 2019 the majority of applications for review in exceptional circumstances arose from ECtHR judgments in criminal cases, with far fewer in civil and administrative proceedings.
A practical example: in the Bochan v. Ukraine (No. 2) case (application no. 22251/08, 2015), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR found that the Ukrainian Supreme Court’s handling of the reopened proceedings following the first Bochan judgment was itself “grossly arbitrary,” constituting a fresh violation of Article 6. Bochan demonstrates that reopening is a procedural mechanism rather than a guarantee of a different substantive outcome: the reopened proceedings must themselves comply with Article 6. A domestic court’s approach to reopened proceedings may therefore give rise to a further application to the Court if those proceedings are conducted unfairly.
Friendly Settlements and Unilateral Declarations
The Committee of Ministers also supervises execution of friendly settlements approved by the Court under Article 39 and unilateral declarations accepted by the Court. These require payment of agreed compensation and any individual or general measures undertaken by the State. Execution is broadly similar to that of judgments following contentious proceedings, though the specific measures are defined by the terms of the settlement or declaration rather than by the Court’s findings.
Coordinating International and Local Counsel
Execution and enforcement of ECtHR judgments almost always require engagement with the domestic courts of the respondent State. The Strasbourg proceedings may have been conducted by specialist international counsel, but the domestic follow-up – filing the reopening application, enforcing the just satisfaction award, or submitting communications to the Committee of Ministers – requires familiarity with local procedural rules and institutions.
Coordination between international ECtHR counsel and competent local counsel is essential. International counsel contributes expertise in the ECtHR’s reasoning and Article 46 principles. The local team knows the domestic procedural mechanisms, the competent court, applicable time limits, and practical realities.
Applicants and NGOs may also submit written communications to the Committee of Ministers during the supervision process, drawing attention to non-compliance or inadequate action plans. This can be a powerful advocacy tool where State engagement is inadequate.
Practical Takeaway
Obtaining a favourable ECtHR judgment is often only the beginning. Effective execution requires timely engagement with domestic procedures, close monitoring of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision process, and, where appropriate, applications to reopen domestic proceedings. Careful planning immediately after the judgment becomes final can significantly improve the prospects of obtaining meaningful practical redress.
This article is part of a series. For related topics, see our articles How to Bring a Case to the European Court of Human Rights; Court Proceedings Taking Years: When Delay Becomes a Human Rights Violation; and When Does Non-Enforcement of a Court Judgment Become a Human Rights Violation?
How Fortior Law Can Help
Fortior Law has direct, first-hand experience with ECtHR execution and enforcement.
Our partner Ivan Lishchyna served as the Ukrainian Government Agent before the ECtHR between 2016 and 2021 – responsible for representing Ukraine in all proceedings before the Court – and previously worked at the Registry of the ECtHR in Strasbourg between 2002 and 2008. This experience provides us with first-hand insight into the execution process: how action plans are prepared and assessed, how the Committee of Ministers evaluates compliance, and how domestic reopening mechanisms operate in Ukraine and across multiple jurisdictions.
We advise clients on post-judgment strategy, coordinate with local counsel, and ensure that a favourable ECtHR judgment is translated into a concrete domestic remedy – whether that means filing for review in exceptional circumstances before the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, pursuing enforcement of a just satisfaction award, or engaging with the Committee of Ministers supervision process.
With offices in Geneva, Zurich, Kyiv, London, New York, Nicosia, Taipei, and Tbilisi, Fortior Law is well positioned to assist clients with the full life cycle of ECtHR matters – from the earliest stages of domestic litigation, through the Strasbourg proceedings, and into the execution and domestic follow-up that follow a successful judgment.
To discuss how we can assist you, please contact us at info@fortiorlaw.com.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your circumstances, please contact Fortior Law directly.
