In late 2023, Krachunova v Bulgaria established a positive obligation on states to allow victims of human trafficking to claim lost earnings from their traffickers. This positive obligation stemmed from Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), the prohibition on slavery and forced labour, and it was widely reported on at the time. What was less widely acknowledged were the further potential implications of this judgment. Those consequences are detailed here, alongside a question: more than a year on from the final judgment, has Krachunova v Bulgaria had implications in practice?

The background to the case and the positive obligation

Ms Krachunova was forced to undertake sex work in Bulgaria for her trafficker, known in the judgment as X. Bulgaria launched an effective investigation into X’s human trafficking crimes, he was prosecuted, and the domestic courts ordered non-pecuniary damages to be paid to Ms Krachunova. However, they stopped short of ordering pecuniary damages to be paid to the applicant, on the grounds that she should not be allowed to obtain lost earnings from “immoral” work.

The question of the pecuniary damages was taken to the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”), and as Stoyanova commented, it was “the first judgment where the ECtHR addressed the question of compensation for victims of human trafficking as a positive obligation held by States under Article 4 of the Convention”.

The Court found a positive obligation under Article 4 ECHR on “Contracting States to enable victims of trafficking to claim compensation from their traffickers in respect of lost earnings” (para 73). What, then, are the wider implications of the judgment?

Compensation for trafficking victims forced into criminality

The case highlights a potential disparity in the compensation given and the type of modern slavery into which victims are coerced. The domestic case and the ECtHR considered whether pecuniary damages could be paid for sex work which was “immoral” and “prohibited by law” (e.g., para 32). Had Ms Krachunova been forced into agricultural labour instead, would the domestic Court have held that pecuniary damages could not be paid? This judgment takes steps to redress this potential imbalance.

The Court spoke of the importance of a human rights-based approach to designing policies for victims of trafficking. Although it did say that in principle a state may deny a remedy to a person “seeking the repayment of money obtained via criminal conduct”, the judgment focused on the coercion of Ms Krachunova who was forced to do sex work as a victim of trafficking (para 184). (Veljko Turanjanin has noted elsewhere the complexities for future cases where coercion is not present.)

The judgment has potential implications for other victims of human trafficking who are forced into criminality. This could include people trafficked and forced to grow cannabis (as in VCL and AN v United Kingdom).

The importance of compensation for trafficking victims generally

On the benefits of compensation for human trafficking victims, the Court described compensation as an “essential part of the integrated State response” to trafficking under Article 4 of the Convention (para 171). The judgment links compensation with restitution, noting the importance of compensation in “upholding [the survivor’s] dignity, assisting their recovery, and reducing the risks of their falling victim again to traffickers” (para 171).

Taking compensation from the traffickers to give to their victims is not new but it is surprisingly infrequent in practice. The Court was very clear in its understanding of how allowing trafficking victims to claim lost earnings from their traffickers would mean that traffickers cannot financially benefit from their crimes, “thus reducing the economic incentives to commit trafficking offences” (para 172). Allowing compensation to be sought from the perpetrators holds traffickers accountable for their crimes (para 172).

The practical implications

A year is not a long time in litigation. Still, it is striking that this case has already been discussed at the UK domestic level. An April 2025 judgment discusses whether the positive obligation under Article 4 ECHR, derived from Krachunova v Bulgaria, extends to “states themselves to provide financial compensation to victims of trafficking perpetrated by third parties” (para 132). Although in this domestic case, Mr Justice Calver held that the positive obligation under Article 4 did not extend so far, it is clear that the judgment in Krachunova v Bulgaria has wide-ranging potential implications for victims of trafficking when they are asserting their right to effective remedy. These implications span beyond the positive obligation established in Article 4 of the Convention. It remains to be seen how this case will continue to be applied in litigation going forward.