Parallel remedies: claims, decisions and previous payments

Question, sources and method

Question: what changes when another application or earlier compensation concerns the same event? The analysis compares the RD4U Claims Rules, A3.1 form and FAQ, Articles 18–22 of Convention CETS No. 229, Articles 34–35, 41, 44 and 46 of the European Convention and Court Rule 47. For the inter-State case, the analysis covers §§ 1640–1652 and the operative part of the judgment of 9 July 2025, together with the official case records as at 16 September 2026. This is documentary legal analysis, without deciding readers’ individual cases. ^{[6] [4] [2] [1] [3] [8] [5] [9] [10]}

Finding 1. A claim differs from its outcome

RD4U records claims and evidence but does not award compensation. Submission confirmation with a unique number, a recording decision, a compensation award and an actual payment are different facts. Claims Rules Articles 3, 13 and 21. An application to a Ukrainian programme therefore does not itself establish a separate RD4U submission: confirmation of that particular claim is needed. ^[6]

Finding 2. A3.1 allows a previous eRecovery application

The official A3.1 FAQ expressly allows an RD4U claim after an eRecovery compensation application and requires information about it. Repairs do not themselves exclude a claim either. Form section VII distinguishes damage assessment from compensation received; section VIII concerns other proceedings. The practical conclusion is to disclose decisions and amounts accurately, distinguishing awards from money already received; this is not a promise of a second full-value payment. ^{[2] [4]}

Finding 3. The Commission Convention distinguishes decisions from double compensation

Article 19 § 1 of CETS No. 229 requires the Commission’s bodies to take relevant international judicial and other adjudicative judgments or awards into account as appropriate. Paragraph 2 permits consideration of national judgments or awards. Paragraph 3 requires measures against double compensation for the same damage, loss or injury. These are distinct provisions: the Convention does not turn every earlier application into an automatic prohibition. Nor does it establish that all social or charitable assistance must automatically be deducted as compensation for the same harm. The payment’s legal nature and the harm it covers must be identified. ^[1]

This analyses the Convention’s text; it is not an announcement that payments have opened. Article 21 separates funding awards from enforcement; enforcement through national courts requires express permission under the relevant member’s domestic law. Article 22 provides for consideration of payment arrangements after funding becomes available. “The Register, the Commission and payment” explains the Commission’s current establishment stage. ^[1]

Finding 4. The ECtHR applies a different duplication test

Article 35 § 2(b) concerns an application substantially the same as one already examined by the Court or submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement, with no relevant new information. Its application depends on the parties, the substance of the complaints, the other body’s nature and the stage of its examination; the label “international application” does not settle the issue. Admissibility guide, §§ 254–269. ^{[3] [7]}

RD4U’s mandate excludes deciding liability or awarding compensation. That materially differs from international adjudication, but it does not predetermine the ECtHR’s treatment of every future Commission procedure. The practical step is clear: disclose relevant other international proceedings in the Court application and include their documents under Rule 47 § 3.1(c). Interaction with another process does not remove the deadline check explained on “The ECtHR: jurisdiction, filing deadlines and redress”. ^{[6] [8] [3]}

Finding 5. An inter-State judgment does not set everyone’s award

The judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia of 9 July 2025 reserved just satisfaction and disjoined the Dutch case; §§ 1648–1652 and operative points 28–29. On 16 September 2026, records 8019/16 and 28525/20 still showed just satisfaction awaiting judgment. An inter-State proceeding does not remove an individual’s right to submit a separate application, which must independently meet the admissibility conditions; guide, § 258. ^{[5] [9] [10] [7]}

A practical record for parallel procedures

• For each procedure, record the applicant, authority, case number and submission and decision dates.
• Describe the harm separately: property, period, type of loss and affected person. One event may cause different kinds of harm.
• Keep these stages distinct: “submitted”, “recorded in RD4U”, “decision issued”, “amount awarded” and “payment received”.
• For each amount, record the legal basis, the harm it covers, date, currency and proof of receipt. Do not record expected funds as received.
• Keep documents from other proceedings and disclose them where the relevant form requires it. Check each route’s deadline separately.

The study concludes that previous procedures must be assessed by their function, outcome and the harm they concern. For A3.1, the official FAQ already answers the question about prior eRecovery applications; for the future Commission, the Convention establishes consideration of decisions and protection against double compensation; the ECtHR applies its own Article 35 test. These rules provide a practical disclosure framework without creating a general requirement to abandon an existing remedy. ^{[2] [1] [3]}