Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:31:17.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kononov v. Latvia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

Lauri Mälksoo
Lauri Mälksoo*
Affiliation:
University of Tartu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 101 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

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 Kononov v. Latvia, App. No. 36376/04 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May 17, 2010) (Grand Chamber). The judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as its basic texts, are available at http://www.echr.coe.int

2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222. 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.

3 Kononov v. Latvia, App. No. 36376/04 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 24, 2008).

4 It has been estimated that Russia spent five million Russian roubles on Kononov’s defense. Snezana, Bartul’, Partizan Vasili Kononov proigral svoyu pobedu (Partisan Vasili Kononuv lost his victory), Kommersant (May 18, 2010), at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1370748 Google Scholar.

5 Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry Following the Pronouncement on May 17, 2010, of the Ruling of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Vasily Kononov (May 17, 2010) (paragraph breaks omitted), at http://www.mid.ru/Brp_4.nsf/arh/898C56838D6A6BAAC325772700420E6B?OpenDocument.

6 Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Latvia Condemns Attempts to Exercise Pressure on the European Court of Human Rights (May 17, 2010), at http://www.am.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2010/may/17–05–02/.

7 See, e.g., Public Prosecutor v. Klinge, 13 I.L.R. 262, 263–64 (Nor. Sup. Ct. 1946), at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/klinge.htm; In re Rauter (Spec. Crim. Ct., The Hague, May 4, 1948), Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 526 (Lauterpacht, Hersh ed., 1949)Google Scholar.

8 See Schmitt, Carl, Die Wendung zum Diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff (4th ed. 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Snezhana, Bartul’, Pavel Laptev: Srok zhizhni Evropeiskogo suda mozhet byt’sokrashen (Pavel Laptev: The length of life of the European court may be shortened), Kommersant (May 31, 2010), at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1378782 Google Scholar.

10 Id.; see also Orlov, Dmitry, Zabytyi Dresden (Forgotten Dresden), Izvestia July 30, 2009), at http://www.izvestia.ru/comment/article3131283/ Google Scholar.

11 See Lauri, Mälksoo, Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR (2003)Google Scholar.

12 See Kolk v. Estonia (application nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04), decided January 17, 2006, and Penart v. Estonia (application no. 14685/04), decided January 24, 2006, all maintaining that the USSR illegally occupied Estonia during these two periods.

13 Bartul’, supra note 9.