PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court 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. The text of Article 41 makes it clear that claims for just satisfaction will be granted only if the internal law of the respondent State allows only partial reparation to be made and if it is necessary to do so. Claims for just satisfaction need to be made when submitting written observations to the respondent government’s submission. Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court sets out the formal conditions regarding a submission of claims for just satisfaction. If the applicant does not make an application for just satisfaction, the Court usually does not grant any award.276 According to Rule 60, claims need to be itemised and accompanied by supporting documents. The Court can award just satisfaction in respect of three types of loss and damage: (i) pecuniary damage, (ii) non-pecuniary damage, and (iii) costs and expenses. i) Pecuniary Damage The Court typically awards pecuniary damage in respect of the loss of enjoyment of property,277 costs of medical treatment,278 or for lost earnings.279 Pecuniary damage is only granted if there is a casual link between human rights violation and the damage suffered. Such a casual link was missing, for example, in the case of Khudobin v. Russia, in which the Court stated the following: The applicant contended that he required constant medical treatment after his release [from detention], yet it is unclear to what extent the expenses he claimed in that respect were related to the effects of the lack of medical assistance in the detention facility and not to his chronic diseases, for which the authorities could not be held responsible. In these circumstances the Court accepts the Government’s argument that the applicant’s claims under this head are not sufficiently substantiated and rejects them.280 Similarly in the case of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia,281 the Court reasoned that Although the Court found several violations of the second applicant’s rights under Articles 3, 6 and 8 in the present case, the loss of his earnings can be attributed to many other factors, primarily to the tax proceedings involving Yukos, which eventually led to its bankruptcy and liquidation. The second applicant’s detention throughout 2004 and 2005 undoubtedly played some part in those proceedings. However, the Court does not need to speculate in this respect. It observes that the link between the violations found in the present case and the loss of the second applicant’s earnings, 276 277 278 279 280 281 See e.g. Necula v. Romania, no. 33003/11, 18 February 2014, § 64. See e.g. Saliba and Others v. Malta, 20287/10, 22 January 2013, §§ 15–23. Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, 24 May 2007, §§ 79–81. Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, 26 January 2006, § 157. Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, 26 October 2006, § 142. Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 11082/06, 25 July 2013. 99