The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).

The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).

Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award could be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts was consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and was speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).

Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).