How to ensure the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the Russian Federation, including payment of the compensation awarded
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 30 September 2026 (33rd sitting) (see Doc. 16478, report
of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur:
Mr Tony Vaughan). Text adopted by the Assembly on
30 September 2026 (33rd sitting).See also Recommendation 2315 (2026).Provisional
version subject to editorial review.
1. Judgments
of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) concerning the
Russian Federation provide an unambiguous record of authoritarian
repression, including human rights violations committed in the territory
of Council of Europe member States. The list of violations includes
the use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war, the indiscriminate
bombing of civilian areas, the murder of political opponents, enforced disappearances,
targeted violence against journalists, a failure to prevent and
prohibit human trafficking, unlimited State surveillance, draconian
control of public debate, attempts to destroy independent civil
society, the unlawful transfer and adoption of children, and the
abduction, detention and torture of persons. The Court’s judgments
establish an authoritative judicial record of a regime that is oppressive
to its own people and an unrelenting menace to its neighbours.
2. Russia was excluded from the Council of Europe on 16 March
2022. Six months later, it ceased to be a Party to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”). Although
Article 58 of the Convention provides for a State to cease to be
a Party to the Convention, it does not release the State from its obligations
in respect of events occurring while it was still a Party. Recalling
Resolution 2494 (2023) and
Resolution
2599 (2025) “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights”, the Parliamentary Assembly notes that Russia has
an unconditional legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention
to implement judgments of the Court in respect of violations that
occurred up to 16 September 2022. This obligation under international
law does not diminish with time and cannot be set aside by Russian
domestic law.
3. Prior to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia already
had a poor record in implementing judgments of the Court. This deteriorated
significantly following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The authorities ceased all communication with the Committee of Ministers
in the context of its supervision of implementation of the Court’s
judgments. On 11 June 2022 a new law entered into force in Russia,
which set out that any judgment of the Court becoming final after
15 March 2022 would not be enforced. That law also specifies that just
satisfaction awarded in judgments that became final before 15 March
2022 would be paid only until 1 January 2023, that such payments
would be made exclusively in roubles, and that they would only be
made to bank accounts located within the Russian Federation.
4. The Assembly welcomes the steps taken by the Committee of
Ministers to continue supervising the execution of the Court’s judgments
concerning the Russian Federation. These steps include strengthening
co-operation with United Nations bodies, engaging with Russian civil
society, issuing communications directed at the Russian authorities,
and enhancing the visibility of the judgment implementation process.
These measures preserve international attention and ensure that
Russia’s legal obligations remain on the institutional and historical
record.
5. Whilst the steps taken to date are welcome, they are not sufficient.
Thousands of victims have been denied justice in a situation which
is unprecedented for the Council of Europe. A former member State
refuses to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, refuses
to engage with the Committee of Ministers in relation to the implementation
of the Court’s judgments, and continues its illegal war of aggression
against another member State. In response to this profound challenge
to its legal and political authority, the Council of Europe should
take any pragmatic and achievable steps available in order to secure,
initially, at least partial implementation of the judgments concerned.
In this regard, the Assembly recalls the Reykjavik Declaration,
in which Heads of State and Government of Council of Europe member
States affirmed, “[t]he need to make every effort to ensure the
execution of the Court’s judgments by the Russian Federation”.
6. One important area where additional steps should be taken
is ensuring the payment of the just satisfaction owed. The Russian
Federation now owes over €3.3 billion in unpaid just satisfaction
awarded by the Court, including default interest. Over € 424 million
is owed as just satisfaction awarded in inter-State cases concerning
Georgia, and over €2.9 billion is owed as just satisfaction awarded
in individual cases (€2.7 billion of which relates to the “Yukos”
case). The amount of just satisfaction due will only continue to
increase, as there are approximately 5 700 applications pending
before the Court against the Russian Federation, a large proportion
of which relate to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
7. In member and observer States, legal grounds may already exist
for action to be taken to ensure the payment of just satisfaction
owed by the Russian Federation. Such action may include steps by
national authorities to freeze and repurpose Russian assets or litigation
by applicants seeking to enforce the Court’s judgments in national
jurisdictions outside Russia. Legislation at national level can
strengthen and support such avenues.
8. The Court has found the Russian Federation responsible for
serious human rights violations in two inter-State judgments in
cases brought by Ukraine. In the second of these, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, concerning
the war in eastern Ukraine since 2014 and the full-scale invasion
launched on 24 February 2022, the Court found that the nature and
scale of the abuses committed were unprecedented in the history
of the Council of Europe. They constituted a flagrant disregard
for the fundamental values of the Organisation and for the foundations
of the international legal order established after the Second World
War. Whilst the Court’s quantification of the just satisfaction
owed in the two inter-State cases is still pending, given the scale
of the damage inflicted on Ukraine, any awards could potentially
amount to billions, tens of billions, or hundreds of billions of
euros.
9. The Assembly notes that the Government of Ukraine is in a
unique situation with regard to obtaining the payment of any just
satisfaction to be awarded in cases concerning the Russian Federation’s
war of aggression against Ukraine. Recalling
Resolution 2556 (2024) and
Resolution
2605 (2025) “Legal and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation’s
aggression against Ukraine”, the Assembly considers that the repurposing of
Russian State assets would constitute a lawful countermeasure under
international law for the following reasons:
9.1 the Russian Federation’s actions against Ukraine are a
violation of the United Nations Charter and an act of aggression,
and Russia must bear the legal consequences of all of its internationally wrongful
acts arising from the aggression;
9.2 repurposing assets would seek to induce compliance by
the Russian Federation with its international legal obligations,
including its obligation to cease the aggression and to make reparation
to Ukraine;
9.3 the repurposing would be proportionate, as any just satisfaction
awarded by the Court could not exceed, and indeed would be a small
subset of, the amount of damage suffered by Ukraine as a consequence
of Russia’s internationally wrongful aggression against Ukraine;
9.4 the repurposing would also be temporary and reversible,
given that the amount would be repurposed and transferred pending
payment by the Russian Federation of the compensation and just satisfaction
due. Any amount transferred and subsequently disbursed to Ukraine
would necessarily be deducted from the total sum owed by the Russian
Federation in unpaid just satisfaction.
10. Many judgments of the Court concerning the Russian Federation
detail outrageous violations of human dignity. In a small minority
of such cases, the Court provides the identity of the individuals
responsible. In other judgments, the names of perpetrators are anonymised,
but the persons involved may be easily identifiable from other sources,
including judgments or credible reports. The Council of Europe does
not have effective tools, at present, to ensure that the Russian
Federation properly investigates such violations and punishes the perpetrators,
as generally required for the execution of those judgments. However,
where individual perpetrators are identifiable, member and observer
States of the Council of Europe should take their own actions to
hold them accountable.
11. In the unique situation in which a former member State of
the Council of Europe refuses to implement judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, refuses to engage with the Committee of Ministers
in relation to the implementation of judgments of the Court against
it, and continues to wage an illegal war of aggression against another
Council of Europe member State, the Assembly calls for additional
steps to be taken. These should seek to secure the payment of any
just satisfaction awarded, and to ensure accountability for the
individual perpetrators of serious human rights violations.
12. The Assembly stresses that Russian State assets under the
jurisdiction of member and observer States, including the principal
of the immobilised assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation
and not merely the proceeds thereof, must not simply be held but
repurposed and used to compensate Ukraine and Ukrainian victims
for the damage, loss and injury caused by the Russian aggression,
for as long as the Russian Federation refuses to fulfil its obligations
to provide reparations and pay just satisfaction. Pending such use, these
assets must remain immobilised, and no arrangement for the cessation
of hostilities or peace settlement should provide for their release
to the Russian Federation before full reparation has been made.
13. In light of these exceptional circumstances, the Assembly
urges member and observer States of the Council of Europe to:
13.1 adopt without delay the necessary
legal and/or practical measures to repurpose assets of the Russian
State that are within their jurisdiction so that, when the European
Court of Human Rights delivers judgment(s) awarding just satisfaction
in inter-State cases brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation
relating to the war of aggression, those assets may be transferred
to a funding mechanism enabling the payment of the just satisfaction
awarded;
13.2 to the extent that it is legally possible, ensure that
their national legal frameworks allow for the domestic enforcement
of any European Court of Human Rights’ just satisfaction award against
the Russian Federation, for as long as Russia refuses to pay it.
14. The Assembly calls on member and observer States, in accordance
with their domestic law and applicable international law, where
there are reasonable grounds to establish that they concern a Ukrainian child
unlawfully deported or forcibly transferred from Ukraine, not to
give legal effect, to acts or documents issued by the Russian Federation
or its occupation authorities which purport to alter the child’s
name, nationality, place of birth, family status or other elements
of the child’s identity. States should facilitate the restoration
and legal recognition of the child’s Ukrainian identity and family
links, in accordance with the best interests of the child.
15. The Assembly calls on member and observer States of the Council
of Europe, as well as the European Union, to impose targeted individual
sanctions in the following circumstances:
15.1 any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning
the Russian Federation has found the Russian authorities responsible
for a violation of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention,
the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under
Article 3, or the prohibition of slavery and forced labour under
Article 4;
15.2 the violation is of notable scale and/or impact, for example
due to the number of victims, the targeted and deliberate nature
of the violation, and/or its repetitive character;
15.3 one or more State agents, or persons linked to the State,
are responsible for the violation and are either identified in the
judgment or are otherwise identifiable;
15.4 the judgment of the Court, and/or the supervision process
before the Committee of Ministers, indicate a failure by the Russian
authorities to hold the individual(s) concerned accountable.
16. In the circumstances identified in paragraph 15, the Assembly
also:
16.1 encourages member and
observer States whose domestic law provides for universal jurisdiction for
the most serious crimes to take appropriate action if the persons
responsible are found within their jurisdiction;
16.2 invites the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate
where the human rights violations identified by the European Court
of Human Rights suggest that a crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction
may have been committed.
17. The Assembly invites the European Court of Human Rights to
ensure that, where possible, future judgments concerning the Russian
Federation identify by name the individuals responsible for serious
human rights violations, as envisaged in paragraph 15 above.
18. The Assembly notes that, under the Court’s records and archives
policy, single-judge files are destroyed one year after the final
decision, while Committee, Chamber and Grand Chamber files are subject
to sorting five years after the case ends. In Lebedeva and Others
v. Russia, notified in September 2026, the Court struck out 879
remaining individual applications against the Russian Federation,
excluding conflict-related cases. These files may contain unique
evidence of human rights violations, including testimony, medical
records and domestic court documents. The Assembly therefore invites
the Court, exceptionally, to preserve in full the files of all applications
against the Russian Federation, including those declared inadmissible
or struck out, until the Russian Federation resumes compliance with
its continuing obligations under the Convention, subject to appropriate
safeguards for personal data and confidentiality.
19. The Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to provide, through
an appropriate international mechanism or mechanisms, all available
and reliable information concerning each Ukrainian child unlawfully deported
or forcibly transferred to the Russian Federation or to territories
temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, including the child’s
full name, date and place of birth, Ukrainian citizenship and place
of residence prior to the transfer, the date and circumstances of
the transfer, current location, legal status, any change of name
or nationality, and information concerning adoption, guardianship,
foster placement or institutionalisation. The Assembly calls on
member and observer States to support the collection, verification and
secure exchange of such information with the competent Ukrainian
authorities, with a view to identifying each child, facilitating
their safe return and restoring family links.
