Special Theme: Reparations for Internationally Wrongful Acts of States

Article 41 of the Enropean Convention on Human Rights: Just Satisfaction under the Enropean Convention on Hnman Rights*

in Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Special Theme: Reparations for Internationally Wrongful Acts of States

Article 41 of the Enropean Convention on Human Rights: Just Satisfaction under the Enropean Convention on Hnman Rights*

in Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online

References

* Address by Luzius Wildhaber, President of the European Court of Human Rights, at the International Conference on the Occasion of the Inauguration of the Baltic Yearbook of International Law, Lund, 20 April 2002.

1 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10.3.1972, Series A no. 14, § 16, and the separate opinion of Judges Holmback, Ross and Wold.

2 Belgian Linguistic case, 23.7.1968, Series A no. 6, point 1 of the operative provisions. 3 Ringeisen v. Austria (Article 50), 22.6.1972; § 18. 4 De Wilde, supra note 1, § 16.

5 Ibid., � § 20. 6 Golder v. The United Kingdom, 21.2.1975, Series A. no. 18, point of the operative Provisions. Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6.11.1980, Series A. no. 38 8 at § 15. 8 Ibid.

9 L. Lester and D. Pannick (eds.), Human Rights Law and Practice; London, Butterworths 1999, paragraphs 2.8.4.

10 Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 18.10.1982, Series A no. 55. t 1 Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden (Article 50), 18.12.1984, Series A no. 88. 12 Ibid., §§ 27-31. t3 Avsar v. Turkey, 10.7.2001; see also Aksoy v. Turkey, 18.12.1996, Reports 1996- VI, § 113. t4 Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31.10.1995, Series A no. 330-B.

15 Akku� v. Turkey, 9.7.1997, Reports 1997-IV.

16 Barbera, Messegue and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13.7.1994, Series A no. 285-C.

17 Probstmeier v. Germany, 1.7.1997, Reports 1997-IV. 18 Recommendation No R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers On the re- examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court ofHuman Rights (19.1.2000). 19 Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28.5.1985, Series A no. 94, § 96.

20 See for example, Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13.7.1983, Series no. 66,§35. 21 Guincho v. Portugal, 10.7.1984, Series A no. 81, § 44. 22 Ceteroni v. Italy, 15.11.1996, Reports 1996-V. z3 Amici v. Italy, 28.3.2002, unreported.

za Bottazzi v. Italy [GC), n. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V. 25 Tomasi v. France, 27.8.1992, Series A no. 241-A.

26 Aksoy v. Turkey, 18.12.1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2260, at p. 2291: TRL 4,283,450,000 . 27 McCann v. the United Kingdom, 27.8.1995, Series A no. 324, § 219. 28 Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24.2.1983, Series A. no. 59.

29 Jordan v. the United Kingdom, 4.5.2001, and three other judgments of the same day. 30 Selmouni v. France, 28.7.1999, ECHR 1999-V, p. 149, at p. 244: 500,000 FFR. 31 See for example Nikolova v. Bulgaria, 25.3.1999, ECHR 1999-11. 32 For example, Olsson v. Sweden, 24.3.1988, Series A no. 130.

33 Elsholz v. Germany, 13.7.2000, ECHR 2000-VIII. 34 L6pez Ostra v. Spain, 9.12.1994, Series A no. 303-C: ESP 4,000,000. 35 Comingersoll v. Portugal, 6.4.2000, ECHR 2000-IV. 36 Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten 6sterreichs and Gubi v. Austria, 19.12.1994, Series A no. 302. 37 Freedom and Democracy Party (OZDEP) v. Turkey, 18.12.1999, ECHR 1999- VIII.

■ID 3g Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), supra note 7, at § 15. 39 Konig v. Germany, 10.3.1980, Series A no. 36. §§. 22-23 and 25. 40 Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13.7.1995, Series A no. 316-B, at § 77. 41 strain Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9.12.1994, Series A. no. 301-B. az Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom (Article 50) 18.10.1982, § 15. a3 For example, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, supra note 40.

� Ibid., at § 78. 45 See for example Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27.6.1997, Reports 1997-IV. 46 See for example Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands (Article 50), 30.10.1997, Reports I997-VII, § 21.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 19 19 4
Full Text Views 6 6 2
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0