Comments on the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case Georgia v. Russia (IV) (Just Satisfaction) of 14 October 2025. “Just Satisfaction in Inter-State Cases: a Doctrine in the Making”

Kamil Strzępek

doi:10.21697/2026.15.1.08

Published: 2026-06-26

Vol. 15 No. 1 (2026)

Comments on the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case Georgia v. Russia (IV) (Just Satisfaction) of 14 October 2025. “Just Satisfaction in Inter-State Cases: a Doctrine in the Making”

Kamil Strzępek

Polish Review of International and European Law

Section: Case comments

https://doi.org/10.21697/2026.15.1.08

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights awarded just satisfaction in an inter-state case for the first time in Cyprus v. Turkey in 2014. Since then, the scholarly debate on just satisfaction in inter-state cases has centered on three key issues: (1) the causal link between violations of the Convention and the resulting damage; (2) the method of identifying victims; and (3) the Court’s reasoning regarding the amount of just satisfaction (equitable considerations). In light of these issues, this study provides a commentary on the Court’s judgment of 14 October 2025 (Just Satisfaction) in the case Georgia v. Russia (IV). Overall, the first factor refers to the clear nexus between the judgment on the merits and the just satisfaction award. Regarding the second factor, it remains questionable whether in Georgia v. Russia (IV) the Court identified the victims with sufficient precision. As to the third factor, Georgia v. Russia (IV) confirms the Court’s ongoing difficulty in defining the principle of equity.

Keywords:

Just satisfaction, inter-state case, the principle of equity, human rights, Georgia v. Russia

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Strzępek, K. (2026). Comments on the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case Georgia v. Russia (IV) (Just Satisfaction) of 14 October 2025. “Just Satisfaction in Inter-State Cases: a Doctrine in the Making”. Polish Review of International and European Law, 15(1), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.21697/2026.15.1.08

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Altwicker-Hámori, Szilvia, Tilmann Altwicker, and Anne Peters. “Measuring Violations of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis of Awards in Respect of Non-Pecuniary Damage under the European Convention on Human Rights.” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 76, no. 1 (2016): 1–51.
Google Scholar

Crema, Max, and Lawrence B. Solum. “The Original Meaning of ‘Due Process of Law’ in the Fifth Amendment.” Virginia Law Review 108, no. 3 (2022): 447–534.
Google Scholar

Cyprus v. Turkey (Merits), no. 25781/94. ECHR judgment of 10 May 2001.
Google Scholar

Cyprus v. Turkey (Just Satisfaction), no. 25781/94. ECHR judgment of 12 May 2014.
Google Scholar

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.
Google Scholar

Fikfak, Veronika. “Non-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it’s all about the state.” Leiden Journal of International Law 33, no. 2 (June 2020): 335–370.
Google Scholar

Ichim, Octavian. Just Satisfaction under the European Convention on Human Rights. Georgia v. Russia (I) (Merits), no. 13255/07. ECHR judgment of 3 July 2014.
Google Scholar

Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction), no. 13255/07. ECHR judgment of 31 January 2019.
Google Scholar

Georgia v. Russia (II) (Merits), no. 38263/08. ECHR judgment of 21 January 2021.
Google Scholar

Georgia v. Russia (II) (Just Satisfaction), no. 38263/08. ECHR judgment of 28 April 2023.
Google Scholar

Grosam v. The Czech Republic, no. 19750/13. ECHR judgment of 1 June 2023.
Google Scholar

Georgia v. Russia (IV) (Merits), no. 39611/18. ECHR judgment of 9 April 2024.
Google Scholar

Georgia v. Russia (IV) (Just Satisfaction), no. 39611/18. ECHR judgment of 14 October 2025.
Google Scholar

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia). Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7.
Google Scholar

Kotowski, Artur. Interpretive Judicial Activism and Risk Propensity in Judicial Decision-Making. Warsaw: Difin, 2026.
Google Scholar

Marcinko, Marcin. “‘A Little War That Shook the Court’: Comment on the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case Georgia v. Russia (II) of 21 January 2021.” Polish Review of International and European Law 11, no. 1 (2022): 117–149.
Google Scholar

Milanovic, Marko. “The Fog of War: The Georgia v. Russia (II) Judgment.” EJIL:Talk! (blog). European Journal of International Law, 25 January 2021. www.ejiltalk.org.
Google Scholar

Mullan, David J. “Natural Justice and Fairness – Substantive as well as Procedural Standards for the Review of Administrative Decision-Making?” McGill Law Journal 27, no. 2 (1982): 250–298.
Google Scholar

Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), no. 14556/89. ECHR judgment of 31 October 1995.
Google Scholar

Radivojević, Zoran, and Nebojša Raičević. “State Liability for Non-Pecuniary Damages in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” Facta Universitatis, Series: Law and Politics 13, no. 1 (2015): 27–38.
Google Scholar

Reynolds, Barney. “Natural Law versus Positivism: The Fundamental Conflict.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 13, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 441–480.
Google Scholar

Risini, Isabella. The Inter-State Application under the European Convention on Human Rights: Between Collective Enforcement of Human Rights and International Dispute Settlement. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2018.
Google Scholar

Sterio, Milena. “Introductory Note to Georgia v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.).” International Legal Materials 59, no. 2 (April 2020): 262–306.
Google Scholar

Strzępek, Kamil. “Subjects of Public International Law and Non-State Actors – Time for Reflection.” Challenges of the Future 9, no. 2 (May 2024).
Google Scholar

Strzępek, Kamil. Status prawny i interpretacja Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie, 2023.
Google Scholar

Varnava and Others v. Turkey, nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90. ECHR judgment of 18 September 2009.
Google Scholar

Von Staden, Andreas. “Compliance with Just Satisfaction Awards and Individual Measures.” In Strategies of Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights: Rational Choice Within Normative Constraints, 77–110. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6ddg.6.
Google Scholar