CASE OF HANAN v. GERMANY
Hearing: Hanan v. Germany (no. 4871/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-02-26 00:00:00)
Application no.: 4871/16
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-02-16 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0216JUD000487116
Respondent state: DEU
Articles of the Convention: 1;2;2-1;35;35-3-a
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković;Tim Eicke
Represented by: KALECK W.
Issue: Code of Crimes against International Law ; Code of Criminal Procedure

Strasbourg case-law cited: Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 306, ECHR 2003 V (extracts);Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, ECHR 2011;Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, ECHR 2011;Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, 30 March 2016;Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 75, ECHR 2001 XII;Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 121, 27 July 2006;Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.) [GC], nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01, 2 May 2007;Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35622/04, 11 December 2012;Damayev v. Russia, no. 36150/04, 29 May 2012;Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], no. 38263/08, §§ 329-332, 21 January 2021;Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no. 36925/07, 29 January 2019;Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, ECHR 2014;Hentschel and Stark v. Germany, no. 47274/15, 9 November 2017;Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 47708/08, ECHR 2014;Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no. 1108/02, § 201, 5 November 2009;Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, ECHR 2006 XIV;McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III;Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 64, ECHR 2010;Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, 14 April 2015;Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005‑VII;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 117, ECHR 2018;Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, ECHR 2007 II;Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, no. 8351/17, 9 July 2019;Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-110, ECHR 1999-IV;Velcea and Mazăre v. Romania, no. 64301/01, 1 December 2009;Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 80, ECHR 2000‑VI
External sources: Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter;Rule 158 of the Customary International Humanitarian Law;UN Basic Principles and Guidelines, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005 (A/RES/60/147);Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 36 on the right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 30 October 2018;Revised version of the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (“Minnesota Protocol”) published by the Office of the UN High Commissionessr for Human Rights in 2017;Section I, subsection 3, of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Status of Forces Agreement;Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“the Rome Statute”) entered into force on 1 July 2002

Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE