The growing complexity of international relations and the expansion of multilateral cooperation among states have increasingly resulted in human rights violations arising within contexts of shared responsibility. This article examines the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the award of just compensation, focusing on the legal challenges generated by joint causation, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and multi-state operations. The research question concerns how the Court determines compensation in situations involving shared responsibility and whether a coherent doctrinal pattern can be identified. The study proceeds from the hypothesis that the ECtHR adopts an individualized approach, avoiding both joint and several liability and the apportionment of compensation among responsible states. Employing a qualitative methodology grounded in case-based and comparative analysis, the research draws on ECtHR judgments, the 2001 International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility, and the Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility. The findings indicate that the Court determines responsibility based on effective control and direct attribution, and awards compensation solely against the state exercising dominant authority. This approach, however, faces persistent challenges, including difficulties in proving divisible causation, the absence of a compensation-allocation mechanism, and structural limitations inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights. The study concludes that while the ECtHR acknowledges shared responsibility, it refrains from recognizing shared compensation, a stance that constrains restorative justice. It recommends the development of rules on compensation allocation and the strengthening of inter-state enforcement mechanisms to align the European human rights system with the multi-actor realities of contemporary governance.