Chapter
Methodological Approaches to the Tort Law of the ECHR
II. Concerning the Method
III. The Rule in Art 41 ECHR and its Immanent Interpretation
IV. The Types of the Damage to be Compensated
B. ‘Just Satisfaction’ – Beyond Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damage?
C. Costs and Expenses in Particular
D. Interest in Particular
F. Restitution in Kind (Restoration)
V. Elements of the Violation and Ground for Liability
B. Who is the State Liable for?
C. Reduction of the Burden of Proof in Imputation
D. Liability for Omissions
E. Omission and Lack of Money
F. The Applicability of Obligations to Third Parties (‘Horizontal Effect’)
VI. Persons Entitled to Compensation
1. Cases, in which the position on the causal link can be explained by the necessary condition formula (ie conditio sine qua non)
2. The ‘direct’ causal link
3. ‘Prohibition on speculation’ and lawful alternative action
4. Incomprehensible statements on the causal link
VIII. The Extent of the Damages
B. The Assessment Practice of the Court
C. The Court’s Explicit or Implicit Rules of Assessment in the Case of Pecuniary Damage
D. The Court’s Explicit or Implicit Rules of Assessment in the Case of Non-Pecuniary Damage
E. In Summary, Tort Law Evaluation and Supplementation
1. Assessment criteria for pecuniary damage
2. Evidence difficulties in the case of pecuniary damage
3. Specific aspects of non-pecuniary damage
IX. The Finding of a Violation as Just Satisfaction?
A. The Case-Law of the Court
C. ‘Discretion’ of the Court also on the Merits?
Methodologische Ansätze zum Schadenersatzrecht der EMRK
III. Die Vorschrift des Art 41 EMRK und ihre immanente Auslegung
IV. Die Arten des zu ersetzenden Schadens
B. „Just satisfaction“ – jenseits von Vermögens- und Nichtvermögensschaden?
C. Kosten und Aufwendungen insbesondere
E. Der immaterielle Schaden (Nichtvermögensschaden)
F. Naturalersatz (Wiederherstellung)
V. Verletzungstatbestand und Haftungsgrund
B. Für wen haftet der Staat?
C. Beweiserleichterungen bei der Zurechnung
D. Haftung für Unterlassung
E. Unterlassung und Geldmangel
F. Zur Drittwirkung („Horizontalwirkung“)
VI. Die Schadenersatzberechtigten
A. Die verletzten Personen
VII. Der Kausalzusammenhang
B. Die Judikatur im Einzelnen
1. Fälle, in denen die Stellungnahme zum Kausalzusammenhang mit der Bedingungsformel (also mit der conditio sine qua non) erklärt werden kann
2. Der „direkte“ Kausalzusammenhang
3. „Spekulationsverbot“ und rechtmäßiges Alternativverhalten
4. Unverständliche Äußerungen zum Kausalzusammenhang
VIII. Der Umfang des Schadenersatzes
B. Die Bemessungspraxis des Gerichtshofes
C. Ausdrückliche oder implizite Bemessungsrichtlinien des Gerichtshofes bei Vermögensschäden
D. Ausdrückliche oder implizite Bemessungsregeln des Gerichtshofes bei immateriellen Schäden
E. Zusammenfassende schadenersatzrechtliche Würdigung und Ergänzung
1. Bemessungskriterien beim Vermögensschaden
2. Beweisschwierigkeiten beim Vermögensschaden
3. Besonderheiten des immateriellen Schadens
IX. Die Feststellung der Rechtsverletzung als gerechte Genugtuung?
A. Die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofes
C. „Ermessen“ des Gerichtshofes auch dem Grunde nach?
Human Rights and Tort Law
II. Fundamental Rights and Tort Law
A. On the Guarantee Principally Embodied in Fundamental Rights: the Obligation to Respect Fundamental Rights
B. Tort Law and Fundamental Rights
C. National and Legal-Policy Margins of Appreciation
III. Compensation in the Case of State Infringements of Fundamental Rights
A. Starting Points for Damage Liability Founded in Fundamental Rights
B. On the Right to Compensation in the Case of Infringement of Personal Freedom (Art 5 Para 5 ECHR)
C. On the Right to Compensation in the Case of Miscarriages of Justice (Art 3 7th Protocol to the ECHR)
D. Rights to Compensation for Infringements of Other Fundamental Rights
E. On State Liability for Fundamental Rights Infringements
IV. Liability Claims Arising out of State Obligations to Protect
A. On the Fundamental Rights-Based Obligations to Protect
B. Claims for Compensation and State Obligations to Protect: the Legislator’s Duty to Act
C. Concretisation of Obligations to Protect by the Case-Law
1. Non-pecuniary damages in the case of deprivation of liberty by private persons
2. The gaps in the compensation of non-pecuniary damage
3. Entitlements in the case of infringements of absolute personality rights
4. On the application of fundamental rights considerations in decisions on claims to compensation
5. Wrongful conception and wrongful birth – a fundamental rights problem?
V. Liability Claims as Infringements of Fundamental Rights
B. Tort Claims and the Principle of Proportionality
C. Compensation for Lawful Exercise of Fundamental Rights?
D. Ruinous Damages Awards
VI. Summarising Conclusions: Human Rights and Tort Law
Menschenrechte und Schadenersatzrecht
II. Grundrechte und Schadenersatzrecht
A. Zum prinzipiellen Gewährleistungsgehalt der Grundrechte: der grundrechtliche Achtungsanspruch
B. Schadenersatz und Grundrechte
C. Nationale und rechtspolitische Ausgestaltungsspielräume
III. Schadenersatz bei staatlichen Grundrechtseingriffen
A. Ansatzpunkte für eine grundrechtlich begründete Schadenshaftung
B. Zum Entschädigungsanspruch bei Eingriffen in die persönliche Freiheit (Art 5 Abs 5 EMRK)
C. Zum Entschädigungsanspruch bei Fehlurteilen (Art 3 7. ZPEMRK)
D. Schadenersatzansprüche bei Eingriffen in andere Grundrechte
E. Zur Staatshaftung für Grundrechtseingriffe
IV. Haftungsansprüche aus staatlichen Schutzpflichten
A. Zu den grundrechtlichen Schutzpflichten
B. Schadenersatzansprüche und staatliche Schutzpflichten: Handlungspflichten des Gesetzgebers
C. Konkretisierung von Schutzpflichten durch die Rechtsprechung
1. Immaterieller Schadenersatz bei Freiheitsberaubung durch Private
2. Die Lückenhaftigkeit beim Ersatz immaterieller Schäden
3. Ansprüche bei Eingriffen in absolute Persönlichkeitsrechte
4. Zur Heranziehung grundrechtlicher Wertungen bei der Entscheidung über Schadenersatzansprüche
5. Wrongful conception und wrongful birth – ein Grundrechtsproblem?
V. Haftungsansprüche als Grundrechtseingriffe
A. Ein Perspektivenwechsel
B. Schadenersatzansprüche und Übermaßverbot
C. Schadenersatz für rechtmäßigen Grundrechtsgebrauch?
D. Ruinöse Schadenersatzforderungen
VI. Zusammenfassende Schlussfolgerungen: Menschenrechte und Schadenersatzrecht
‘Just Satisfaction’ in Art 41 ECHR and Public International Law – Issues of Interpretation and Review of International Materials
I. Introduction: The European Convention on Human Rights as Part of Public International Law
II. Interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights
A. Treaty Interpretation under Public International Law
B. Special Aspects of the Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights
III. Elements for the Interpretation of Art 41 ECHR
A. The Wording of Art 41 (ex Art 50) ECHR and its Drafting History
B. The Principle of Effectiveness (‘Object and Purpose’)
C. Subsequent Practice (Art 31 Para 2(b) VCLT)
D. Art 31 Para 3(c) VCLT: ‘... any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties’
E. Comparative Interpretation – National Laws
F. Comparative Interpretation – Other International Instruments
IV. Pertinent Rules of General International Law
B. Customary International Law on Reparation
1. The ILC Articles on State Responsibility of 2001
2. Contents of state responsibility
3. Lex specialis and ‘self-contained regimes’
C. General Principles of Law
1. General principles of law as a source of international law
2. General principles of law within the context of the European Convention
V. Materials for Comparative Interpretation: Other International Schemes for Reparation
A. Inter-State Claims based on the Diplomatic Protection of Nationals
B. Claims by Individuals before Claims Tribunals and Claims Commissions
1. Iran-US Claims Tribunal
2. International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and tribunals set up under its auspices
3. United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) and Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC)
C. Claims before (other) Human Rights Institutions
1. The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation (2005)
2. The United Nations Treaty-Bodies
3. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights
D. Claims before International Criminal Courts
Can the Reparation Awarded to Victims of Violations under the ECHR be Considered a Real ‘Just’ Satisfaction?
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
I. General Requirements in Respect of Damage
II. Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damage
III. Protected Rights and Interests
B. Rights and Interests in the Person
2. Physical and mental integrity
b) Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art 3)
c) The right to respect for private life (art 8)
4. The right to private and family life
6. Other personality interests
1. Meaning of ‘possessions’
3. Expectations and claims
D. Pure Economic Interests
2. Economic assets as possessions
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
A. General Requirements in Respect of Damage
B. Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damage
C. Protected Rights and Interests
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
II. General Remarks on the Analysis of the Case-Law
A. Substantiation of the Claim
III. The Requirement of ‘Clear Causation’
IV. Conditio sine qua non
A. Use of the ‘Conditio sine qua non’ Test
B. Non Revealed Causal Test
3. ‘Sufficient causal link’
4. Further qualifications and criteria
5. The case of Mascolo c. Italie – does only an exclusive cause incur liability?
VI. Causation and the Violation of Procedural Guarantees
a) The irrelevance of the hypothetical outcome – full compensation?
b) ‘Prohibition on speculation’ rule – no compensation
c) ‘Loss of (real) opportunities’ – partial compensation
2. Attempts at reconciliation
a) Probability of triumphing in domestic proceedings?
b) Type and quality of the procedural right infringed?
c) Suitability of the damage for assessment?
e) Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC] – does the Court speculate after all?
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
I. The Requirement of Causation and the Conditio sine qua non
A. The Fundamental Idea: A Flexible Borderline
III. Causation and the Violation of Procedural Guarantees
3. Alternative causation per analogiam
4. Co-existence of several approaches
A. Differences in the National Tort Law Systems
1. Conduct or result as starting point
2. Main functions of ‘wrongfulness’ and ‘fault’
B. Wrongfulness and Fault under Art 41 ECHR
2. Protected interests and required standard of conduct
II. Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
B. Analysis of Violations of Different Convention Rights through Active Conduct
C. Violation of Convention Rights through Omissions
4. Reasonable time requirement of art 6 ECHR
D. Lack of Resources and the Required Standard of Conduct
Protective Purpose of the Rule
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
II. The Protective Purpose of the Rule in the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR
A. The Scope of Protection in Human Rights Cases
B. The Protective Purpose of a Rule as a Separate Element of Inquiry
1. Practical and effective safeguards
3. Standards of international law
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
No-Fault or Strict Liability
II. Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence and the Literature
III. ECtHR Jurisprudence Compared
Compensation for Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Loss
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
A. Content and Interpretation of Art 41 ECHR with Regard to the Compensation for Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Loss
C. General Remarks on Compensation for both Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Loss
1. Equity as a governing principle
2. Discretion of the ECtHR and global amounts for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
3. Damages must be claimed
II. Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
A. Explicit or Implicit Rules for the Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
2. Impact of the seriousness of a violation of the Convention on compensation for pecuniary damage
3. Evidentiary difficulties
B. Compensation of Damage to Existing Individual Interests (Damnum Emergens)
1. Compensation of reasonable expenses
2. Compensation of loss of maintenance for dependants of the deceased (‘Versorgungsschaden’)
3. Compensation for loss of property
b) Destruction of property
4. Loss of career prospects
5. Domestic fines and awards
C. Compensation for Loss of Income (Lucrum Cessans)
D. Victim of a Violation and Corporate Personality
E. Conclusions on Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
III. Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Loss
B. Explicit or Implicit General Rules of Assessment in Cases of Non-Pecuniary Damage
1. No precise calculation of non-pecuniary damage
2. Domestic practice is not binding
3. (Limited) duty to follow previous ECtHR judgments
4. Agreement by the respondent State
5. Assessment of damages for non-pecuniary loss ‘on an equitable basis’
C. A Few Concrete Criteria for Assessing Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss
1. Relevance of the seriousness of the violation of the Convention
2. Relevance of the seriousness and duration of the injury
3. Personal characteristics of the applicant (eg age, state of health)
4. Relevance of standard of living and economic indicators in the applicant’s country
5. Behaviour of the victim
D. Criteria and Awarded Amounts with Regard to Different Violated Convention Rights – Cases
1. Violation of art 2 ECHR (right to life)
a) Overview of the judgments detailed below
2. Violation of art 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture)
a) Direct victim is applying for non-pecuniary damage
b) Violation of art 3 ECHR in respect of relatives of disappeared persons who are presumed dead by the ECtHR
3. Violation of art 5 ECHR (right to liberty and security)
a) Violation of art 5(1) ECHR (right to liberty and security) – Duration of the unlawful detention
b) Violation of art 5(1) ECHR (right to liberty and security), art 18 ECHR (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and art 34 ECHR (individual applications)
c) Violation of art 5(1) ECHR (right to liberty and security), art 5(4) ECHR (right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of the detention shall be decided speedily by a court) and art 5(5) ECHR (enforceable right to compensation)
d) Violation of art 5(3) ECHR (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial)
e) Violation of art 5(3) ECHR (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and art 5(4) ECHR (right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of the detention shall be decided speedily by a court)
4. Violation of art 6(1) ECHR (right of access to court)
a) Unreasonable length of proceedings
b) Failure of the authorities to properly and/or timeously enforce a judgment in the applicant’s favour
5. Violation of art 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
6. Violation of art 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with art 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
E. Conclusions on Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Loss
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
I. Comparative Remarks on Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
B. Compensation and Expropriated Property (Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy)
2. International law perspective on the distinction between lawful and unlawful expropriations
3. International law perspective on the amount of compensation for lawful and unlawful expropriations
II. Comparative Remarks on Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Loss
1. Acceptance of compensation for non-pecuniary loss in national law and range of cases
2. Survival of the right to claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary loss
3. Compensation for non-pecuniary loss to third parties (relatives, secondary victims)
4. Compensation for non-pecuniary loss for legal entities or organisations
5. Global amounts for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
B. General Principles: Equity and Discretion
C. The ECtHR’s Concrete Criteria for the Assessment of Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Loss in Comparison with Domestic Laws
1. Interplay between objective and subjective criteria
2. Assessment criteria of the ECtHR in comparison with criteria addressed at the domestic level and in the PETL
a) Tables and compilations based on national court practice
Punitive and Nominal Damages
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
B. Punitive Damages under the ECtHR
1. Convention and Practice Direction
3. Punitive v aggravated damages
4. Compensation scales and adjustments of just satisfaction awards
C. Protecting Convention Rights through Supervisory Measures and other Human Rights Institutes of the Council of Europe
B. Nominal Damages under the ECtHR
1. Convention and Practice Direction
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
Satisfaction by Finding a Violation
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
II. Assessment of the Court’s Case Law (1992–2009)
A. The Value of the Harm Suffered and the Low Amount of Damages Claimed
B. Applicant’s Attitude during Proceedings
C. Breach of National Laws by Applicant
D. Nature of Breach Committed by Respondent State
E. Lack of Deprivation of Liberty
F. Refusal to Speculate as to the Outcome of the Case
G. Violations of Specific Provisions of the Convention
H. The Mixed Approach Cases
III. Declaratory Judgments as Just Satisfaction for both Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages: The Coming of a New Era in the Court’s Approach to Compensation?
IV. Cases where, in the Court’s View, Declaratory Judgments Would not Suffice
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
First Part: Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
II. Contributory Negligence in Outline
III. Contributory Conduct under the Convention and the Practice Direction on Just Satisfaction Claims
IV. The Applicant’s Conduct under Art 6 ECHR
A. Standard of Conduct and Fault
c) Interrupting proceedings
e) Failure to expedite proceedings
B. Causation and Apportionment
1. No finding of a violation
2. A finding of a violation to amount to sufficient just satisfaction
3. A reduction in the award of damages
4. Making an assessment on an equitable basis
V. Contributory Negligence and Cases under the ECtHR: Other Articles
A. The Right to Life (Art 2)
1. No finding of a violation
2. Dismissal of damages claim
4. Imputation of acts of third persons as contributory conduct and contributing conduct and third party claims
B. Prohibition of Torture (Art 3)
C. Protection of Property (Art 1 of Protocol No 1)
Second Part: Comparative Remarks
I. The Recognition of and Justification for Contributory Negligence in ECHR Signatory Jurisdictions
A. The Imputation of Acts of Third Persons as Contributory Fault
B. Contributory Conduct and Third Party Claims
A. Reduction of Damages in National and European Tort Law
B. Principles Governing the Reduction of Damages
II. Analysis of the ECtHR Jurisprudence
A. Incapacity and Vis Maior
1. Assanidze v. Georgia [GC]
2. Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine
B. Benefits Received and Risks Taken
C. Contributory Conduct or Activity
1. Rehbock v. Slovenia and Wenerski v. Poland
2. Sabin Popescu c. Roumanie
D. Prohibition on Speculation
Concluding Remarks Regarding the Methods of Interpreting Art 41 ECHR
I. Franz Bydlinski’s Approach
II. Wolfram Karl’s Position
Concluding Remarks on Damage
I. Foundations of the Concept of Damage
II. Autonomous Concept of Damage and Protected Interests
Concluding Remarks on Causation
II. Different Issues – Natural and Legal Causation
B. Particular Problems in the Case of Violation of Procedural Guarantees
Concluding Remarks on Wrongfulness and Fault
Concluding Remarks on the Protective Purpose of the Rule
II. Protective Purpose Aspects in the Case-Law of the Court?
Concluding Remarks on No-Fault or Strict Liability
I. Grounds for Liability and Explanation of Terminology
II. Classification of Liability under Art 41 ECHR
Concluding Remarks on Compensatory and Non-Compensatory Remedies
II. Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
A. Principle of Full Compensation
B. Assessment of Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
III. Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Loss
A. Recoverability of Non-Pecuniary Loss
B. Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Loss in all Cases of Infringements of Fundamental Rights?
C. Compensation in Kind or Compensation in Money?
D. Finding of a Violation and Nominal Damages as Type of Compensation in Kind?
Concluding Remarks on Contributory Negligence and Reduction Clause
Tort Law in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
