Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:19:58.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Streletz, Kesslerand Krenz v. Germany and K.-H W. v. Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bernard H. Oxman  and
Beate Rudolf
Beate Rudolf
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf/Tulane Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Streletz, Kessler and Krenz V. Germany. App. Nos. 34044/96,35532/97, & 44801/98.49 ILM 811 (2001), available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.

K.-H. W. V. Germany. App. No. 37201/97. 49 ILM 773 (2001), available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, March 22, 2001.

In a landmark judgment, Streletz, Kesslerand Krenz v. Germany, die European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously held that criminal prosecution of the leaders of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) for ordering to kill individuals attempting to flee the GDR is compatible with the principle nullum crimen sine lege and consequently with the prohibition on retroactive criminal laws under the European Convention on Human Rights. In a second judgment, K.-H. W. v. Germany, with three of the seventeen judges dissenting, the Court affirmed this holding as applied to the criminal responsibility of a low-ranking soldier.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 904 - 910
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Streletz v. Germany, App. Nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, & 44801/98 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 22, 2001) [hereinafter Streletz ECHR judgment]. Applicants Streletz and Kessler were sentenced together in a September 1993 decision by the Berlin Regional Court, and their initial appeals to the Federal Court of Justice were also decided together in July 1994. In a further appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court, which was decided in October 1996, the appeals of Streletz and Kessler were joined with that of K.-H. W. (see infra note 2). At all three levels within the German court system, the decisions in applicant Krenz’s case followed—both in time and in substantive holdings— the decisions in the Streletz–Kessler proceedings (consequently, no more than a passing reference will be made in this case report to German court proceedings involving Krenz). It was only upon Krenz’s application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that his case was joined with that of Streletz and Kessler. In addition to its single decision concerning those three applicants, the ECHR issued a separate but in many ways similar judgment concerning the application of K.-H. W.—presumably because his having been a border guard, rather than a senior public official like the other applicants, raised somewhat different legal issues.

The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are available online at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>. Legal provisions relevant to the Streletz ECHR judgment are described and, as appropriate, translated in section II (paras. 27–43) of that judgment. Legal provisions relevant to the ECHR’s judgment in K.-H. W. v. Germany, infra note 2, are described and, as appropriate, translated in section II (paras. 21–39) of that judgment.

2 K-H. W. v. Germany, App. No. 37201/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 22, 2001) [hereinafter W. ECHR judgment]. For procedural background, see supra note 1.

3 Klaus, Marxen & Gerhard, Werle, Die Strafrechtliche Aufarbeitung Von DDR-Unrecht 8 (1999)Google Scholar.

4 Gesetz über die Aufgaben und Befugnisse der Deutschen Volkspolizei, v. 1.6.1968 (GB1. I S.232).

5 Gesetz über die Staatsgrenze der DDR, v. 25.3.1982 (GB1. I, S.197).

6 Gemeinsamer Standpunkt zur Anwendung des §213 StGB, v. 15.1.1988, OG-Informationen 2/1988, S.9, 14.

7 Agreement with Respect to the Unification of Germany, FRG-GDR, Aug. 31, 1990, Annex I, Ch. III, Pt. C, sec. II, no. 1 (b) (BGB1. II S.889, 955), translated m30 ILM 457 (1991) (amending Article 315 of the Introductory Act to the Criminal Code (Einführungsgesetz in das Strafgesetzbuch)), in conjunction with Section 2 (3) of the Criminal Code.

8 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 19; W. ECHRjudgment, supra note 2, para. 18 (both cases quoting Berlin Regional Court).

9 Gustav, Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzlkhes Recht, 1 Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung 105 (1946)Google Scholar.

10 BGHSt 39, 1 (Nov. 3, 1992); BGHSt 39, 168 (Mar. 25, 1993).

11 BGHSt 40, 218 (July 26, 1994), BGHSt 40, 241 (July 26, 1994), and BGHSt 45, 270 (Nov. 8, 1999), respectively.

12 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 22; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 20 (both cases citing respective decisions by Federal Court ofjustice, supra note 11).

13 Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (quoted in Streletz ECHRjudgment, supra note 1, para. 20).

14 GA Res. 217A (III) (Dec. 10, 1948) (quoted in W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 18).

15 BVerfGE 95, 96 (Oct. 24, 1996) [hereinafter Streletz Constitutional Court judgment] (translated, in relevant part and as cited herein, in Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1 , para. 22, and in W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 20)).

16 English translation available online at <http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/law/GG/gg0.htm>.

17 Streletz Constitutional Court judgment, supra note 15.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 221 (1950).

21 Article 7(1) provides:

No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

22 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 57; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 52. See Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1.para. 50; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 45 (both quoting 5. W. v. United Kingdom, 335-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995) and C. R. v. United Kingdom, 335-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995)).

23 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 61; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 56.

24 The Court addressed this issue in the Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, paras. 67–76, and in the W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, paras. 62–67.

25 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 79.

26 Id., para. 78 (cross-reference omitted).

27 Id., para. 78.

28 Id., para. 87; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 90.

29 W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 75.

30 See id., Partly Diss. Op. Pellonpää, J. (joined by Zupancic, J.); id., Partly Diss. Op. Cabral Barreto, J., para. 4.

31 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 80; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 83.

32 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 81; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 84.

33 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 83; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 86.

34 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 91. An equivalent statement can be found in W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 93.

35 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, paras. 102; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 102.

36 Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 104; W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, para. 103. In Streletz the Court also referred to Article 8 and Article 19, sec. 2, of the 1968 GDR constitution, as well as to another portion of the Criminal Code. Streletz ECHR judgment, supra note 1, para. 103.

37 For a thorough analysis of the arguments put forward, see Peter, E. Quint, The Border Guard Trials and the East German Past—Seven Arguments, 48 Am. J. Comp. L.. 541, (2000)Google Scholar.

38 See Günther, Jakobs, Unrecht des Staates—Unrecht im Staat, 141 Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 1, 9 (1994)Google Scholar.

39 But see Michael, Pawlik, Strafrecht und Staatsunrecht, 141 Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafkecht 472, 475 (1994)Google Scholar-.

40 The term was coined by Bemd Rüthers in Die Unbegrenzte Auslegung (5th ed. 1997), an examination of German courts’ application of civil law during the era of National Socialism.

41 Matthias, J. Herdegen, Unjust Laws, Human Rights, and the German Constitution: Germany’s Recent Confrontation with the Past, 32 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 591,. 602, (1995)Google Scholar.

42 See, e.g., Thilo, Rensmann, BVerfGE95, 96-Mauerschiitzen, in Verfassungsrechtsprechung 604, 610–11 (Jorg, Menzel ed., 2000)Google Scholar. Similarly, in concurring opinions in the instant cases, Judges Loucaides (in both the Streletz and W. ECHR judgments, supra notes 1 & 2, respectively) and Levits (W. ECHR judgment, supra note 2, paras. 13–18, following Loucaides, J.) proposed to find against the applicants because their conduct constituted a crime against humanity.