Tag Archives: ECtHR

28 May 2013

Search and Rescue Operations at Sea: Who is in Charge? Who is Responsible?

Symposium on the Law of the Sea and the Law of Responsibility, cross-posted on Opinio Juris

On Sunday, 8 May 2011, the British newspaper The Guardian reported the story of a boat carrying 72 persons, among them asylum seekers, women and children, which left Tripoli (Libya) for the Italian island of Lampedusa at the end of March 2011 (for comments, see here and here). After 16 days at sea, the boat was washed up on the Libyan shore with only 11 survivors. During the 16 days route, survivors told that they used their satellite phone, which later ran out of battery, to call an Eritrean priest in Rome for help (see Resolution 1872 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe). The priest alerted the Italian Maritime Regional Coordination Centre, which located the migrants’ vessel and sent out many calls to the ships in the area. (more…)

24 January 2013

Update – The Dutch Courts and Asylum at the ICC: From Shared Obligations to Obligations of No One

In October 2012, the SHARES Blog carried a post that discussed a September Dutch Court decision concerning the on-going asylum situation at the ICC. Since then there are have been two important developments: the matter has been taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the original Dutch decision has been overturned on appeal. (more…)

21 January 2013

Witnesses in ICC Detention Centre not within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands

On 17 December 2012, the Court of Appeal of The Hague decided that three Congolese witnesses who had testified before the International Criminal Court (ICC) and who were still being detained in the ICC Detention Centre in the Hague, were not within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands in the sense of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The three witnesses had applied for asylum in the Netherlands. However, the Court held that the Netherlands was not obliged to take over the witnesses from the ICC. The Court followed the judgment of the ECtHR in the case Djokaba Lambi Longa v. The Netherlands (8 October 2012, application no. 33917/12).

Source: Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage | Judgment, 18 December 2012 | LJN: BY6075 | 200.114.941/01 (in Dutch)

7 January 2013

Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court in case concerning sanctions on Iran

On 14 December, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) ruled that the Dutch Sanction regulation, that was intended to give effect to UN Security Council Resolution 1737, violated the prohibition of discrimination under Article 26 ICCPR.

Resolution 1737 imposed sanctions on Iran in connection with the Iranian nuclear programme. Implementing the Resolution, the Netherlands blocked access of Iranian nationals to specialised education that could contribute to nuclear activities/developing nuclear weapons. The Supreme Court found that the State did not do everything it could to harmonise the obligations it has under international law. The Court referred in this context to the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Nada v. Switzerland (12 September 2012, application no. 10593/08).

Source: Hoge Raad | Judgment, 14 December 2012 | LJN: BX8351 | 11/03521 (in Dutch)
Source: Sanctieregeling tegen Iraniërs maakt onnodig onderscheid (Press Release in Dutch)

8 October 2012

Sharing responsibility? The co-respondent mechanism and EU accession to the ECHR

The negotiations on accession by the EU to the ECHR have recently entered their final stage. Representatives of the EU and of the forty-seven parties to the ECHR (the so-called Group 47+1, which has published the reports of its first and second meeting) are scheduled to meet twice this autumn to agree on a final accession agreement. It is likely that it will largely be based on the draft agreement on EU accession, which was made publicly available last year. Once final agreement has been reached, it is very likely that the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) will be asked for an Opinion on whether the agreement is compatible with the EU Treaties. Should the CJEU give the agreement a green light, the ratification process can begin.

This blog entry asks whether the co-respondent mechanism provided for in the draft agreement leads to a sensible allocation of responsibility between the EU and its Member States for violations of the Convention post-accession. (more…)

Newer posts →