166 Tanja Penter
Kate Brown, Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future (New York, NY:
W. W. Norton & Company, 2019); Susanne Bauer, Karena Kalmbach and Tatiana Kasperski, “From Pripyat to Paris, from Grassroots Memories to Globalized
Knowledge Production: The Politics of Chernobyl Fallout,” in: Laurel MacDowell
(ed.), Nuclear Portraits: Communities, the Environment, and Public Policy (Toronto: University Press, 2017), 149–189.
34. Ulrich Beck, “Der anthropologische Schock. Tschernobyl und die Konturen der
Risikogesellschaft,” in: Merkur 8/1986.
35. Ales’ Adamovic, “Nicht nur ein AKW. Ein Brief an Michail S. Gorbacev,” in:
Osteuropa, 56, 4 (2006), 19–22.
36. CASE OF MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA, Application no. 41302/02, July 2005.
37. CASE OF DAVLETKHANOV and other “Chernobyl pensioners” v. RUSSIA,
Applications nos. 7182/03, 10115/04, 21752/04, and 22963/04, 23 September
2010; CASE OF ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA, Application no. 51380/07,
March 2009.
38. CASE OF ROLGEZER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, Application no. 9941/03,
April 2008. The applicants complained, in particular, about the excessive length of
the civil proceedings. The ECHR decided in favor of the applicants and declared
that the Russian state had to pay all 29 applicants within three months the amount
of EUR 2,000 in respect of their non-pecuniary damage.
39. The comparison with Belarus and Kazakhstan must be left out at this point, as they
are not members of the Council of Europe or the ECHR.
40. CASE of BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, Applications nos. 46852/13
et al., October 2017. It is not entirely clear how many of the plaintiffs were victims
of the Chernobyl disaster. However, some judges of the Court assumed that this
was the case for the majority. The Grand Chamber judgment of the ECHR in this
case concerns the continuous failure of Ukraine to adopt general remedial measures to deal with applications to the ECHR on the subject of non-enforcement or
delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions. Following its “pilot” judgment
YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE adopted in 2009, the ECHR
dismissed all 12,143 cases, handing them to the Department of Execution at the
Council of Europe for enforcement. In their dissenting votes, seven judges complained: “It is particularly troubling that among the present applicants, and most
likely among those applications which were not seen by a judge, there are many
victims of the Chernobyl disaster and other vulnerable persons. We refrain from
describing the kind of additional suffering the perpetuation of their misery will
cause” (p. 74).
41. CASE of SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE, Application no. 41984/98
March 2005.
42. CASE of SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE, Application no. 41984/98
March 2005, p. 22.
43. Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, “Bericht Einzeldienstreise in die Ukraine 10. bis 13. April
2018,”
would comprise about 22% of the total Ukrainian budget.
44. Arndt, Tschernobylkinder; Dalhouski, Tschernobyl in Belarus.
45. Collection of private letters in the archive of the Foundation “Understanding and
Reconciliation” in Minsk, Belarus.
46. In particular, they criticized the threshold value set in Moscow, according to which
a life dose of radiation (calculated over 70 years of life) of 35 rem (=350 mSv) does
not cause any damage to health. The scientists demanded a significantly lower limit
of maximum 7 rem (=70 mSv) than the life dose and argued that even low radiation
could lead to health damage. An annual radiation dose of 0.1 mSv should already
justify the resettlement of the residents. The Supreme Soviet of Ukraine had passed
Kate Brown, Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future (New York, NY:
W. W. Norton & Company, 2019); Susanne Bauer, Karena Kalmbach and Tatiana Kasperski, “From Pripyat to Paris, from Grassroots Memories to Globalized
Knowledge Production: The Politics of Chernobyl Fallout,” in: Laurel MacDowell
(ed.), Nuclear Portraits: Communities, the Environment, and Public Policy (Toronto: University Press, 2017), 149–189.
34. Ulrich Beck, “Der anthropologische Schock. Tschernobyl und die Konturen der
Risikogesellschaft,” in: Merkur 8/1986.
35. Ales’ Adamovic, “Nicht nur ein AKW. Ein Brief an Michail S. Gorbacev,” in:
Osteuropa, 56, 4 (2006), 19–22.
36. CASE OF MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA, Application no. 41302/02, July 2005.
37. CASE OF DAVLETKHANOV and other “Chernobyl pensioners” v. RUSSIA,
Applications nos. 7182/03, 10115/04, 21752/04, and 22963/04, 23 September
2010; CASE OF ALEKSEY ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA, Application no. 51380/07,
March 2009.
38. CASE OF ROLGEZER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, Application no. 9941/03,
April 2008. The applicants complained, in particular, about the excessive length of
the civil proceedings. The ECHR decided in favor of the applicants and declared
that the Russian state had to pay all 29 applicants within three months the amount
of EUR 2,000 in respect of their non-pecuniary damage.
39. The comparison with Belarus and Kazakhstan must be left out at this point, as they
are not members of the Council of Europe or the ECHR.
40. CASE of BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, Applications nos. 46852/13
et al., October 2017. It is not entirely clear how many of the plaintiffs were victims
of the Chernobyl disaster. However, some judges of the Court assumed that this
was the case for the majority. The Grand Chamber judgment of the ECHR in this
case concerns the continuous failure of Ukraine to adopt general remedial measures to deal with applications to the ECHR on the subject of non-enforcement or
delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions. Following its “pilot” judgment
YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE adopted in 2009, the ECHR
dismissed all 12,143 cases, handing them to the Department of Execution at the
Council of Europe for enforcement. In their dissenting votes, seven judges complained: “It is particularly troubling that among the present applicants, and most
likely among those applications which were not seen by a judge, there are many
victims of the Chernobyl disaster and other vulnerable persons. We refrain from
describing the kind of additional suffering the perpetuation of their misery will
cause” (p. 74).
41. CASE of SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE, Application no. 41984/98
March 2005.
42. CASE of SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE, Application no. 41984/98
March 2005, p. 22.
43. Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, “Bericht Einzeldienstreise in die Ukraine 10. bis 13. April
2018,”
would comprise about 22% of the total Ukrainian budget.
44. Arndt, Tschernobylkinder; Dalhouski, Tschernobyl in Belarus.
45. Collection of private letters in the archive of the Foundation “Understanding and
Reconciliation” in Minsk, Belarus.
46. In particular, they criticized the threshold value set in Moscow, according to which
a life dose of radiation (calculated over 70 years of life) of 35 rem (=350 mSv) does
not cause any damage to health. The scientists demanded a significantly lower limit
of maximum 7 rem (=70 mSv) than the life dose and argued that even low radiation
could lead to health damage. An annual radiation dose of 0.1 mSv should already
justify the resettlement of the residents. The Supreme Soviet of Ukraine had passed