Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:22:20.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kurić and Others v. Slovenia & Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (Just Satisfaction) (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven M. Schneebaum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) brought in its wake massive bloodshed, as well as human rights violations not seen on the European continent since the end of the Second World War. It probed the boundaries of contemporary international law in numerous ways, including providing the first “field tests” of the doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” which may turn out to be the biggest challenge to the notion of state sovereignty posed in centuries.

Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 53 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 1073 - 1160
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2014

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

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights website (visited November 17, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-111634.

1. The constituent Republics of the SFRY, until its breakup in the early 1990s, were Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Each of those—along with Kosovo, a quasi-autonomous part of the Republic of Serbia during the SFRY regime—is an independent state today, and each is a member of the United Nations and of the Council of Europe.

2. Kurić and Others v. Slovenia, 2012-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 1 [hereinafter Kurić I], available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-111634; Kurić and Others v. Slovenia, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2014 [hereinafter Kurić II], available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-141899.

3. See Kurić I, supra note 2, ¶¶ 21–83.

4. Four of the ten original individual claimants were denied standing in Kurić I, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or for other procedural reasons. Id. ¶ 9.

5. Id. ¶¶ 265–69.

6. Id. ¶ 314; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 8, Nov. 4, 1953, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953) [hereinafter European Convention].

7. Kurić I, supra note 2, ¶¶ 360–62.

8. Id. ¶ 357.

9. Id. ¶ 396; European Convention, supra note 6, art. 14.

10. Kurić I, supra note 2, ¶¶ 369–72; European Convention, supra note 6, art. 13.

11. Kurić I, supra note 2, ¶ 424. The Court did enter an award of €20,000 to each claimant in respect of non-pecuniary losses. Id. ¶ 425.

12. Kurić I, supra note 2, ¶ 415; Kurić II, supra note 2, ¶ 9.

13. Kurić II, supra note 2, ¶¶ 31–46.

14. Id. ¶ 81.

15. Kurić II, supra note 2, ¶¶ 110–15; Kurić I, supra note 2, ¶¶ 420–21.

16. Remarks by the Court and certain of the concurring Judges suggest that the number of still unresolved claims resulting from the Slovenian “erasure” policy is today well below 10,000. But those remarks are unsourced, and their reliability cannot be guaranteed. Kurić II, supra note 2, ¶¶ 28 –29.

17. See Kurić I, supra note 2 (concurring opinion of Judge Zupančič); Kurić I, supra note 2 (partially concurring, partially dissenting opinion of Judge Vučinić).