Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:49:43.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hanan v. Germany (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2021

Kalika Mehta
Kalika Mehta*
Affiliation:
Kalika Mehta is a doctoral researcher at Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy Graduate School of Law, the University of Hamburg, Germany. She holds an LL.M. in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights from the Geneva Academy and she is qualified to practice law in India.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In February 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in favor of Germany in the case Hanan v. Germany, concerning a 2009 NATO airstrike in Kunduz (Afghanistan) resulting in the deaths of many civilians.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 61 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law

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.)

Footnotes

*

Footnote 13 has been corrected since original publication. A corrigendum notice detailing this change was also published (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2021.46)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Banković v. Belg., App. No. 52207/99 (Dec. 12, 2001), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-22099.

2 Jaloud v. Neth., App. No. 47708/08 (Nov. 20, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148367.

3 Al-Skeini v. U.K., App. No. 55721/07 (July 7, 2011), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105606.

4 Güzelyurtlu v. Cyprus & Turk., App. No. 36925/07 (Jan. 29, 2019), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189781.

5 Hanan v. Ger., App. No. 4871/16, ¶¶ 65–69 (Feb. 16, 2021), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-208279 [hereinafter referred to as the GC Decision].

6 Id. ¶¶ 11–13.

7 Al-Skeini, supra note 3; Jaloud, supra note 2.

8 Güzelyurtlu, supra note 4, ¶¶ 188–190.

9 GC Decision, ¶ 135.

10 Id. ¶ 190.

11 Id. ¶¶ 137–139. The dissenting opinion finds these special features as a disagreeable tailoring of the ‘jurisdiction’, See the Separate Opinion ¶ 18.

12 Id. ¶ 142).

13 Id. ¶¶ 211–235.

14 Id. ¶ 225.

15 Id. ¶ 229.

16 Id. ¶ 230.

17 Id. ¶¶ 53, 55.