Ukraine & Netherlands v. Russiaの本案判決が下されました。欧州人権条約上の「管轄」概念から責任法上の行為帰属まで多岐にわたる注目判断を含んでおり、早くも解説が出てきていますが、ここではあまり取り上げられない並行手続との関係をめぐる裁判所の判断について触れておきたいと思います。
ロシアによるウクライナ侵攻後、無数の個人申立が欧州人権裁判所に係属中である一方で、来るべき戦後処理を見据えたウクライナ損害登録制度（RD4U）が設立され、すでに登録申請の受付を開始しています。そのため、両手続の関係がかねてから論じられてきましたところ（拙稿参照）、裁判所は、損害登録制度が始動している状況を踏まえつつ、救済判断（「正当な満足」）を行う段階には達していないとして、判断を先送りする処理をしました。と同時に、将来の救済判断に際してはそうした損害登録制度の動きを考慮する旨予め明言しています。
1649. The unprecedented nature of the present case is further underlined by the fact that, in May 2023, the Council of Europe established a Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The express purpose of this Register is to “serve as a record, in documentary form, of evidence and claims information on damage, loss or injury caused to all natural and legal persons concerned, as well as the State of Ukraine (including its regional and local authorities, State-owned or controlled entities), caused on or after 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders, extending to its territorial waters, by Russian Federation’s internationally wrongful acts in or against Ukraine” (see paragraph 91 above and B352). According to its Statute, the work of the Register is intended to constitute the first component of a future international compensation mechanism to be established by a separate international instrument in co-operation with Ukraine (B352). On 2 April 2024 the Register of Damage opened the claims submission process (see paragraph 92 above).
1650. Against this background and given the nature of many of the violations found, the Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not yet ready for decision. Moreover, the Court considers that any future award made in respect of the applicant Ukrainian Government in the present case pursuant to Article 41 of the Convention must have due regard to the establishment of the Register of Damages and the ongoing discussions concerning a future compensation mechanism.
また、本件はマレーシア航空機（MH17）撃墜事件にかかるオランダの申立も併合して審理されていたところ、同撃墜事件は国際民間航空機関（ICAO）の紛争処理手続でも扱われてきており、ロシアの義務違反を認定する判断が本年5月に示されていました。そのため、同撃墜事件にかかるICAOと欧州人権裁判所の賠償判断の関係もまた問われるところ、裁判所は、こちらについても同様に判断を先送りする処理をしました。その際、本案審理に際して併合していたMH17撃墜事件にかかる手続について、「正当な満足」の審理手続では分離する処理をした点は興味深いです。
1651. As regards the downing of flight MH17, the applicant Dutch Government have invoked the State responsibility of the Russian Federation and the ICAO Council has recently found that State to have failed in its international law obligations in respect of the downing; it is now considering what form of reparations are in order (see paragraphs 131 and 134-137 above) and it will be important to take any further developments in this respect into account when making an award for just satisfaction in respect of the applicant Dutch Government. It will also be important to have regard in this context to the processing of the individual applications lodged before this Court by relatives of those who lost their lives on flight MH17 (see paragraph 18 above).
1652. For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to disjoin application no. 28525/20 lodged by the applicant Dutch Government from the remainder of the case to permit the examination of the just satisfaction claims in that application separately.
