FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF
CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA
v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
(Applications nos.
7398/07, 31244/07, 11993/08 and 3957/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 September 2012
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Chadzitaskos and Franta v. the Czech Republic,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Dean Spielmann, President,
Mark Villiger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika Nußberger,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 September 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in four applications (nos.
7398/07, 31244/07, 11993/08 and 3957/09) against the Czech Republic lodged with
the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 February 2007, 13 July 2007,
1 March 2008 and 14 January 2009 respectively.
The applicants are two Czech nationals, Mr Maxim
Chadzitaskos (“the first applicant”), who was born in 1955 and lives in Prague, and Mr Vilém Franta (“the second applicant”), who was born in 1948 and lives
in Třebíč. The first applicant lodged application nos. 7398/07 and
31244/07 alone. Application nos. 11993/08 and 3957/09 were lodged jointly by both
applicants.
The Czech Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 18 November 2010 the applications were
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
The composition of the Fifth Section sitting on 4
September 2012 was modified in accordance with Rule 25 § 4 of the Rules of
Court.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Application no. 7398/07
The first applicant was a minority shareholder of
six forestry companies. On 8 February 2002 these companies, together with
seven others, signed an asset-sharing agreement (smlouva o fứzi)
in order to wind up these companies and transfer all their assets to company C.
The agreement laid out rules for the apportionment of the newly issued shares
in company C. and the amounts that the existing shareholders would receive in
compensation for the liquidated shares. The basis upon which the new shares
would be allocated and the amounts to be given in settlement were based on an
opinion drawn up by experts appointed by the Brno Regional Court (krajský
soud) on 27 June 2001 at the request of the companies concerned.
The agreement also included an arbitration clause
by which any disagreement with the share allocation ratio or the amounts in
settlement was to be decided in arbitration under the rules of Společnost
pro dražby a rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. (“Company for Auctions and
Arbitrations”), a private limited liability company incorporated under
Czech law which maintains a register of arbitrators and lays out rules for
arbitration.
The first applicant, not being satisfied with the
amount of compensation he received, brought an action under Article 220p § 4 of
the Commercial Code against company C. whereby he asserted that this amount was
inadequate and claimed a further 1,499,535 Czech korunas (CZK) (60,858 euros
(EUR)).
On 5 May 2004 the Brno Regional Court (krajský
soud) terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over
the dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the
agreement.
The first applicant appealed, arguing that as a
minority shareholder he had not voted for the asset-sharing agreement and had
therefore never consented to the arbitration clause. He argued that the denial
of the Brno Regional Court to hear the case had amounted to a violation of his
right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.
On 29 March 2005 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní
soud) upheld the decision, holding that the fact the applicant had personally
never consented to the arbitration was immaterial because the agreement,
including the arbitration clause, was nevertheless valid.
On 23 August 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní
soud) dismissed the first applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly
ill-founded. The court held that the arbitration clause was binding on all
shareholders of the companies which were a party to the agreement. The court
did not find a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, holding
that the opportunity afforded to the applicant to take his dispute to
arbitration safeguarded his property rights as a shareholder.
B. Application no. 31244/07
On an unspecified date a general meeting of
company C. adopted, by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a
resolution on the winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its
assets to the majority shareholder. On 9 December 2003 the court administering
the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík) approved the transfer.
The amount of compensation the first applicant received was based on an opinion
given by an expert on 8 September 2003 who was appointed by the Brno Regional Court but chosen and paid for by company C.
The contract between company C. and the majority
shareholder for the transfer of all its assets included a clause providing for
the settlement of any disputes regarding the compensation paid to the minority
shareholders by arbitration under the rules of Společnost pro dražby a
rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. A motion to proceed with the asset transfer
was passed at the general meeting by virtue of the votes held by the majority
shareholder.
On 18 February 2004 the first applicant brought an
action whereby he asserted that the compensation for the transfer was inadequate
and claimed a further amount. He claimed CZK 50 (EUR 2.03) instead of CZK 7.899
(EUR 0.32) he had been awarded for each of his 70,380 shares.
On 27 April 2004 the Brno Regional Court
terminated the proceedings holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute
because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the asset-transfer agreement.
On 30 November 2004 the Olomouc High Court upheld
that decision, finding no violation of the first applicant’s right of access to
court. It held that the arbitration clause was binding, even for the applicant,
by virtue of Article 220k(1) of the Commercial Code. It further held that
arbitration decisions were subject to a court review, albeit a limited one, and
that the disputes over compensation were primarily a technicality.
On 18 July 2006 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší
soud) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on points of law, agreeing
with the lower courts.
On 8 February 2007 the Constitutional Court
dismissed the first applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded,
holding that the arbitration clause was valid even for him (as a minor
shareholder) and that the arbitrators were independent and obliged to comply
with the law. Furthermore, the court did not find a violation of the first
applicant’s property rights holding that the procedure by which the amounts of
compensation were calculated was based on an expert opinion and it could have
been reviewed in arbitration proceedings.
C. Application no. 11993/08
The applicants were minority shareholders of
company H. On 28 August 2006 a general meeting of company H. adopted, by
virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the
winding-up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the majority shareholder.
On 15 September 2006 the court administering the Companies Register approved
the transfer. The amount of compensation the applicants received, CZK 148,808 (EUR
6,039) for the first applicant and CZK 77,748 (EUR 3,155) for the second
applicant, was based on an opinion given by an expert appointed by the Ostrava Regional Court on 12 April 2006 but chosen and paid for by company H.
The contract between company H. and the majority
shareholder for the transfer of all assets to it included a clause providing
for the settlement of any disputes regarding compensation paid to the minority
shareholders by arbitration under the rules of Společnost pro dražby a
rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. A motion to proceed with the asset transfer
was passed at the general meeting by virtue of the votes held by the majority
shareholder. The first applicant voiced his disagreement with the arbitration
clause during the general meeting.
On 21 November 2006 the applicants brought an
action whereby they asserted that the compensation for the transfer was inadequate
and claimed a further amount without specifying the exact sum.
On 5 January 2007 the Brno Regional Court
terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the
dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the asset-transfer
agreement.
On 20 March 2007 the Olomouc High Court upheld
the decision.
On 9 October 2007 the Constitutional Court
dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded,
referring to its previous decision concerning the first applicant from 8
February 2007 as mentioned above.
D. Application no. 3957/09
The applicants were minority shareholders of
company M. On 23 July 2007 a general meeting of company M. adopted, by
virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the
winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the majority
shareholder. On 2 October 2007 the court administering the Companies Register approved
the transfer. The amount of compensation the applicants received, CZK 241,607 (EUR
9,805) for the first applicant and CZK 47,110 (EUR 1,912) for the second
applicant, was based on an opinion given by an expert appointed by the court
but chosen and paid for by the majority shareholder.
The contract between company M. and the majority
shareholder, signed by the same person for both entities, for the transfer of
all assets to the majority shareholder included a clause providing for the
settlement of any disputes regarding the compensation paid to the minority
shareholders by arbitration conducted by a certain Mr F. in a procedure analogous
to the procedure held before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic
Chamber of the Czech Republic and the Agricultural Chamber of the Czech
Republic. A motion to proceed with the asset transfer was passed at the general
meeting by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder.
On 13 December 2007 the applicants brought an
action whereby they asserted that the compensation for the transfer was inadequate
and claimed a further amount without specifying the exact sum.
On 11 March 2008 the Brno Regional Court
terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the
dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the asset-transfer
agreement.
On 12 June 2008 the Olomouc High Court upheld that
decision, finding no violation of the applicant’s right of access to court. It
held that the arbitration clause was binding, even for the applicants, by
virtue of Article 220k(1) of the Commercial Code. It further held that
arbitration decisions were subject to a court review, albeit a limited one, and
that the disputes over compensation were primarily a technicality.
On 4 September 2008 the Constitutional Court
dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded,
referring to its previous decisions concerning the same matter.
E. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice are set
out in the Court’s judgment in Suda v. the Czech
Republic, no. 1643/06, 28 October 2010.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF APPLICATIONS
The Court notes that the subject matter of the
applications (nos. 7398/07, 31244/07, 11993/08 and 3957/09) is similar. It
is therefore appropriate to join the cases, in application of Rule 42 of the
Rules of Court.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicants complained that they were denied
access to court regarding their claims for compensation as provided in Article 6
of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...
everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government did not submit their observations
on the merits of the cases.
The Court notes that the issue in the present
case is identical to that in the case of Suda, (cited above),
where it found, based on its existing case-law, a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the same ground as that
raised by the complaint in the present applications. Having examined all
relevant circumstances, the Court does not see any reason to hold otherwise in
the present case.
The Court, accordingly, declares
the complaint admissible and finds a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
as regards the applicants’ lack of access to court regarding their claims for
compensation.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL
No. 1
In applications nos. 31244/07, 11993/08 and
3957/09 the applicants further complained that they had been deprived of their
shares without any public interest being served and without adequate
compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law
and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the
use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the
payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
The Government maintained that the applicants
had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, including availing
themselves of the opportunities for arbitration and claiming damages from the
board members of the companies or the court-appointed experts as provided for
by Article 220l in conjunction with Article 220p § 3 of the Commercial Code at
that time. They also maintained that the Court should not depart from its
case-law where it found similar complaints inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies, referring to Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic, nos.
32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05, 15 October
2009, and Kozlov v. Russia (dec.), no. 55129/00, 18 April 2002.
The Court observes that the applicants
instituted compensation proceedings whereby they asserted that the compensation
for the transfers was inadequate and claimed a further amount under Article
220p § 4 of the Commercial Code. This was an appropriate remedy for the applicants’
complaint that they had been deprived of the shares without adequate
compensation. The Court notes that the proceedings for damages suggested by the
Government had a different purpose which was to enable persons to claim
compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts of individuals. However,
the applicants simply maintained that the amount of compensation they received
had been inadequate but not necessarily caused by any unlawful conduct.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate for them to institute the proceedings
suggested by the Government (see also, mutatis mutandis, Suda, cited
above, § 54).
The Court also considers that the facts of the
present case differ from the cases referred to by the Government. In Kohlhofer
and Minarik (cited above, §§ 16, 24 and 39) the compensation proceedings
were still pending, in contrast to the present case, where they had finished. Moreover,
the Russian case cited by the Government is not pertinent to the present
situation at all because the Court rejected that application on the ground that
the applicant had failed to institute any proceedings before the domestic
commercial courts.
Regarding the question as to whether the
applicants should also have instituted proceedings in arbitration the Court
considers that the issue is closely linked to the merits of the case and joins
that issue to its examination of the merits.
B. Merits
The applicants maintained that the legislation
allowed majority shareholders to expropriate the shares of minority shareholders
without the public interest being served and without adequate compensation. It
was the majority shareholder who in fact determined the amount of compensation
and a minority shareholder could not have effectively prevented this.
The Government maintained that even assuming
that the transfer of the applicants’ shares constituted an interference with
their property rights it was lawful and served the public interest. The
interference also struck a fair balance between the public interest and the
applicants’ rights. The requirement of procedural guarantees under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 did not go as far as all the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention; otherwise, that provision would be superfluous in all cases
concerning property rights.
They maintained that the procedural guarantees
required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were satisfied in the present case. The
amount of compensation received by the applicants was determined according to
an opinion given by a court-appointed expert and
it could be reviewed as to its merits either by arbitrators or by courts. Either
the arbitrators would acknowledge that they had jurisdiction and would decide
on the merits of the cases or they would decline jurisdiction and then courts
would have an obligation to decide on the merits.
46. The Government were convinced that the
arbitration proceedings, in combination with a limited court review would
provide sufficient procedural guarantees as called for by Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. Moreover, the arbitration proceedings in question did not suffer from
any of the serious deficiencies that had made the Court find a violation of this
provision in Sovtransavto Holding v.
Ukraine (no. 48553/99, § 91, ECHR 2002-VII), and in any case the applicants had not
even attempted to institute them.
47. The Court has accepted that the
obligation imposed in certain circumstances on minority shareholders to
surrender their shares to majority shareholders could not, in principle, be
considered contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as long as the law did not
create such inequality that one person could be arbitrarily deprived of
property in favour of another (see Freitag, cited above, § 53). The
Court must thus examine whether a “fair balance” was struck between the
demands of the public interest and the need to protect the right of individuals
to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Sovtransavto
Holding, cited above, § 98).
48. In particular, the Court has held that
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 imposes an obligation on the State to afford
judicial procedures which offer the necessary procedural guarantees and,
therefore, enable the domestic courts and tribunals to adjudicate effectively
and fairly on any disputes between private persons relating to property rights
(see Sovtransavto Holding, cited above, § 96, and Anheuser-Busch
Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007‑I). In other words, the State must
ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently
protected by law and that adequate remedies are provided whereby the victim of
an interference can seek to vindicate his rights, including, where appropriate,
by claiming damages in respect of any loss sustained (see Blumberga
v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, § 67, 14 October 2008).
49. The Court has acknowledged that
procedures satisfying the procedural requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
do not have to be judicial in nature. It has held that “a comprehensive
view must be taken of the applicable procedures” (see Jokela v. Finland,
no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002‑IV), or that “a comprehensive view must be
taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures” (see
Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, § 89, 31 July 2008). The Court observes, however, that usually in
cases where it found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on this ground
the applicants had access to judicial procedures (see, for example, Sedelmayer
v. Germany (dec.), no. 30190/06, 10 November 2009; Tarnowski v. Poland
(no. 1), no. 33915/03, §
85-86, 29 September 2009; and MPP
Petrol v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 62605/00, § 140, 25 March 2008).
50. The Court considers that the main issue in the present case lies in the question whether the applicants had access to procedures that would offer the
necessary procedural guarantees for effective and fair adjudication of their dispute
regarding the amount of compensation they received for the compulsory transfer
of their shares.
51. The Court observes that the domestic law in
force at that time, by virtue of Article 220k § 1 in conjunction with Article
220p § 4 of the Commercial Code, enabled a majority shareholder to decide that
minority shareholders would only be given the opportunity to dispute the amount
of compensation for their shares in arbitration proceedings. The majority
shareholders in the present applications did so and encouraged the applicants
to enter into arbitration.
The Court considers that, in general, the
legislation on asset transfers pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest.
It refers to its previous findings that the Czech legislation pursued a
legitimate interest in denying the minority shareholders access to court to
challenge the legality of an asset transfer (see Kohlhofer and Minarik, cited
above, § 98). However, it considers
that such a conclusion is not readily applicable in the present case, where it
deals with ex post facto procedural guarantees only in respect of compensation
for the asset transfer. The Government failed to specify what legitimate aim
was served by the legislation allowing majority shareholders to unilaterally
choose arbitration for these disputes. Even if the Court accepts that there was
some public interest, such as the economic well-being of the country, it was of
relatively minor significance in the present case.
The present case concerns proceedings conducted
by arbitrators drawn from a list held by a private company and following its
rules. The arbitrators are selected only by that company and the criteria for drawing
up the list and the required qualifications of the arbitrators are unknown.
Such a tribunal is not established by law and there is no public hearing before
it. In application no. 3957/09 the majority shareholder, by its unilateral
decision, chose as an arbitrator a specific private individual who was to
decide on a case in a procedure analogous to the procedure before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and the
Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic. This arbitrator likewise was not provided
for by law and no public hearing would be held before him.
The Court considers that such proceedings which
were clearly deficient from the point of view of Article 6 of the Convention
(see paragraph 37 above), could not satisfy the procedural requirements of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 either. In this context the Court reiterates that
the requirement that a tribunal be established by law is closely connected with
other fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, including the independence and
impartiality of the members of a tribunal (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium,
nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII,
and Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, § 36, 11 July 2006). Furthermore, the
arbitration proceedings envisaged in the present case cannot even be considered
to amount to an administrative procedure that could in some circumstances
satisfy the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They were private
proceedings held before private individuals and, in applications nos. 31244/07
and 11993/08, operated under the rules set up by a private company.
The Court considers that this deficiency could
not be remedied by very limited judicial review proceedings in which the courts
could deal only with procedural deficiencies and not at all with the conclusions
of the arbitrators on facts or law (see, mutatis mutandis, Suda,
cited above, § 52, and, by contrast, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom,
24 October 1986, § 60, Series A no. 108).
The Court also notes the Government’s argument
that the applicants should have instituted the arbitration proceedings whereupon
the arbitration tribunals might have declined jurisdiction, resulting in the
case being heard on its merits in the ordinary courts. The Court considers, however,
that this would have been a very risky course for the applicants. Had they
instituted arbitration proceedings, the arbitrators drawn from a list held by a
private company or a specific private individual (an option to which the
applicants had never consented and which they distrusted), could have also ruled
on the merits of their claims (see, mutatis mutandis, Suda, cited
above, § 52). Moreover, instituting arbitration proceedings is not required by
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, especially when, as in the present case,
the applicants unsuccessfully exhausted the available remedies before domestic
courts all the way up to the Constitutional Court.
The Court thus concludes that the applicants did
not have access to procedures satisfying the requirements of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 for the determination of their claims that the amount of
compensation they received was inadequate. Arbitration proceedings before
Společnost pro dražby a rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. or the
arbitrator, Mr. F., were insufficient. This deficiency upset the “fair balance”
that has to be struck between the demands of the public interest and the need
to protect the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions.
In sum, the Court dismisses the objection of the
Government as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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.”
A. Damage
The applicants claimed altogether CZK 6,243,499
in respect of pecuniary damage, calculated as the difference between the
alleged value of the expropriated shares and the amount of compensation they
had received. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the first applicant claimed CZK 3,479,087
(EUR 139,638) and the second applicant CZK 302,513 (EUR 12,142).
The Government argued that there was no causal
link between the alleged violations of the Convention and the pecuniary damage
claimed. Regarding the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that an
eventual finding of a violation of the Convention itself would represent
sufficient redress.
The Court does not discern any causal link
between the violation found under Article 6 of the Convention and the pecuniary
damage claimed (see Suda, cited above, § 60).
Regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court
observes that its finding of a violation is only concerned with the complaint
that the State failed to guarantee the applicants access to appropriate
procedures regarding their property claim. Consequently, the Court does not
discern any causal link between the violation found under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 and the pecuniary damage alleged either; it therefore rejects this claim.
On the other hand, the Court, ruling on an
equitable basis, awards the first applicant EUR 20,000 and the second applicant
EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicants also claimed CZK 49,250 for costs
and expenses incurred in the domestic court proceedings.
The Government maintained that no award should
be made under this head because the applicants had not submitted any documents
in support of their claims.
The Court considers that some of the costs which
the applicants incurred in the domestic proceedings, namely the payment of
costs and expenses of the defendants, are recorded in the submitted decisions
of the domestic courts. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and
to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 400 to
each applicant for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
1. Decides
to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds that in applications nos. 31244/07,
11993/08 and 3957/09 there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the
applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts, to be converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to the first
applicant and EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the second applicant, plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 400 (four hundred euros) to each of the applicants,
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and
expenses;
(b) 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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 September
2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean
Spielmann
Registrar President
