magnify
Home Human Rights Archive for category "European Convention on Human Rights"

The ECtHR’s Largest Ever Award for Just Satisfaction Rendered in the Yukos Case

Published on August 15, 2014        Author: 

mccarthy

Dr Conor McCarthy is a barrister at Monckton Chambers, London and formerly fellow of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

On 31 July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision in the just satisfaction phase of proceedings in Yukos v. Russia. In its judgment the Court made its largest ever award of compensation, ordering Russia to pay in the region of € 1.9 billion to the shareholders of the company at the time of its liquidation. In 2012, the Court had found Russia to be in violation of the rights to a fair hearing and the protection of property under the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol 1. The Court’s compensation decision follows on from the recent final awards of three arbitral tribunals, constituted under the Energy Charter Treaty, which found that the Russian Federation had taken measures with the effect equivalent to an expropriation of Claimants’ investments in Yukos, contrary to Article 13 (1) of the treaty. These final awards were issued on 18 July 2014. Russia was ordered to pay almost $ 50 billion in compensation in these proceedings. Claims arising from the circumstances surrounding Yukos liquidation have also been taken before the ICC International Court of Arbitration as well as in national courts in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands as well as, of course, in Russia itself. This post focuses on the ECtHR’s decision, with some reflections on its significance.

Background

The events underlying the Yukos case occurred in the early 2000s, a period of considerable economic and political upheaval in Russia. Between 2002 and 2003 the Russian authorities investigated the tax affairs of Yukos. This culminated, in April 2004, in the company being assessed as having accumulated huge tax liabilities, in part, according to the findings of the Russians authorities, as a result of Yukos having used impermissible sham companies to evade tax. Yukos was ordered to pay approximately € 1.4 billion in tax arrears for the year 2000, € 1 billion in interest and a further € 0.5 billion in enforcement penalties. In the same month proceedings were initiated against Yukos alleging improperly declared tax liability and seeking the attachment of the company’s assets as security for the claim. A hearing was held at the Moscow City Commercial Court in respect of the tax assessment between 21 and 26 May 2004, with much of the evidence in support of the assessment (running to several tens of thousands of pages) being served on 17 May 2004 and in subsequent days immediately prior to the hearing. The assessment was upheld, with Yukos being found liable to pay well over € 1.3 billion in respect of tax in the year 2000, together with almost € 1 billion in interest and € 0.5 billion in penalties. Subsequently, the penalty imposed on Yukos (approximately € 0.5 billion) was doubled when the tax authorities determined that Yukos had used similar tax arrangements in 2001 to those used in 2000.

Yukos sought to appeal the decision of the Commercial Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Appeal Division of the Moscow City Commercial Court on 29 June 2004. On 30 June 2004, the Appeal Court issued a writ for the enforcement of Yukos’s assessed liabilities, compelling compliance within 5 days. Upon Yukos’s failure to pay the sums within the required period, further penalties of 7 % of the debt were levied. Yukos’s requests to extend the very short deadline for payment were unsuccessful. In the next six months there followed further tax re-assessments for each subsequent year to 2003, including in particular huge assessments to VAT as well as profits taxes, penalties and interest, ultimately totalling some € 24billion. The enforcement of these liabilities was immediate and in the absence of immediate payment in full incurred further surcharges.

Yukos were unable to obtain sufficient liquid funds to meet the liability. In December 2004 the majority of the shares in its largest and most profitable subsidiary, Yuganskneftegaz, (“YNG”), were auctioned to meet its tax liability, rendering insolvency inevitable. Yukos was declared insolvent in August 2006.

The treatment of Yukos by the Russian Federation has resulted in considerable litigation at the international level. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

The ECtHR Finds the US Guilty of Torture – As an Indispensable Third Party?

Published on July 28, 2014        Author: 

The recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights in two cases concerning secret detention in Poland are remarkable, not the least because their bold approach in respect of human rights violations committed by a third party, in this case the United States of America. Of course, the US is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and was not a participant in the proceedings. In both cases Poland was found to have violated a number of ECHR provisions, including articles 3 and 5, by hosting a CIA black site and by otherwise participating in the US programme of secret detention and extraordinary renditions.

In paragraph 516 of Al Nashiri v. Poland (Application no. 28761/11, Chamber Judgment of 24 July 2014), the Court concludes:

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the CIA during his detention in Poland at the relevant time amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (…).

The same conclusion appears in paragraph 511 of Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (Application no. 7511/13, Chamber Judgment of 24 July 2014). Immediately after the finding on torture by the US, the Court makes its finding in respect of Poland (Al Nashiri para. 517).:

Accordingly, the Polish State, on account of its “acquiescence and connivance” in the HVD Programme must be regarded as responsible for the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention committed on its territory …

One may ask whether the ECtHR through its formulations in paras. 516-517 created a situation where the US was an indispensable third party, to the effect that the finding in respect of the lawfulness of conduct by the US was a prerequisite for a conclusion in relation to Poland, even if the Court obviously did not consider the US participation in the proceedings (or consent to its jurisdiction) to be indispensable.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

The ECtHR and the Regulation of Transnational Surrogacy Agreements

Published on July 25, 2014        Author: 

ivana6-1Ivana Isailović is a post-doctoral researcher at the Perelman Center for Legal Philosophy (Université libre de Bruxelles) and is affiliated with the IAP, Human Rights Integration Project.

In a number of recent cases, French courts refused to give effect to US court decisions that recognized French intending parents as legal parents of children born through surrogacy agreements and to inscribe the foreign filiation into the French civil status registry. In the decisions in Mennesson v. France and Labassee v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that those refusals violated children’s right to private and family life, protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It dismissed claims based on the breach of parent’s right to private and family life and on violations of article 14 (non-discrimination), article 6-1 (right to a fair trial) and article 12 (right to marry).

This is the first time the ECtHR has considered the question of transnational surrogacy. The decisions tackle some of the vexing issues related to the regulation of the booming global surrogacy market. These issues include ethical and political concerns related to the commodification of the body. Also in question are the definitions of citizenship and parenthood in a context in which the differences between domestic regimes illustrate a variety of cultural and political understandings of filiation and parenthood. This post focuses on the latter set of issues and the legal uncertainties they create.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

The Downing of MH17 and the Potential Involvement of International Courts

Published on July 22, 2014        Author: 

I do not at all want to trivialize the human tragedy that is the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine last week, nor for that matter the parallel unfolding tragedies on the ground in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza, by engaging in some premature lawyerly analysis. But, in reading on the unfolding story of the aircraft’s demise, I nonetheless couldn’t help but think how that story is very likely to find its epilogue in an international courtroom. The facts of MH17′s destruction are obviously far from clear, and are not going to become much clearer in the near future, but the number of possible scenarios is limited – the aircraft was (most likely) destroyed by Ukrainian rebels with Russian-supplied weapons, or (less likely) by either Ukranian or Russian state agents (who may have acted ultra vires). And not only did the downing of MH17 deepen a major existing international crisis, but it directly affected a number of states other than Ukraine and Russia, such as Malaysia and the Netherlands, not to mention the families of the victims themselves. This raises both the incentives and the opportunities for international litigation, in addition to whatever proceedings may ensue before domestic courts or international fact-finding missions.

Consider, first, the possibility that a case or cases regarding MH17 might end up before the European Court of Human Rights. Both Russia and Ukraine are of course parties to the ECHR, and readers will recall that one of the first acts of the new government in Kiev in response to the Crimea crisis was to lodge an inter-state application against Russia in Strasbourg, on which the Court ordered provisional measures. It is perfectly possible for the downing of MH17 to be an issue in the existing or a new inter-state case, or indeed one brought by a third state, such as the Netherlands, since the majority of the victims had Dutch nationality. And obviously the families of the victims may also bring individual applications against either Russia or Ukraine.

In addition to whatever direct involvement these states may have had in the destruction of the aircraft, they could also be held liable for other internationally wrongful acts. For example, Ukraine could be responsible for failing to secure the right to life of the victims and failing to comply with its substantive positive obligations under Article 2 ECHR by deciding not to close the relevant airspace for civilian traffic. Russia could be held responsible for providing the rebels with anti-aircraft weaponry without sufficient safeguards (e.g. appropriate training of the missile crews), thus creating the risk that this weaponry could be used against civilian targets. Both states could be held responsible for failing to secure an effective investigation into the incident. Obviously the facts could yet develop and some very complex preliminary issues could arise (e.g. the extent of Russia’s control over the Ukrainian rebels and the question of the ECHR’s extraterritorial application), but all these points seem arguable.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
Tags:

OHCHR Publishes Report on Surveillance and Privacy in the Digital Age

Published on July 18, 2014        Author: 

Readers will recall that in its resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age the UN General Assembly had requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report for the next GA session on the various issues raised by mass electronic surveillance and the human right to privacy (see here for our previous coverage). An advance edited version of that report (A/HRC/27/37) is now available here. The report is rich, thoughtful and very much pro-privacy in the surveillance context, albeit not in a blind, fundamentalist way. It reaffirms that the right to privacy, as set out in Article 17 ICCPR or Article 8 ECHR, provides a framework within which the legality of surveillance measures needs to be assessed. While it acknowledges the legitimate governmental interests that surveillance may serve, it finds the existing institutional and legal arrangements in many states wanting and in need of further study and reform. Here are some of the highlights:

- It is important to consider linkages with other possible human rights violations, e.g. the collection of intelligence through surveillance that is later used for an unlawful targeted killing (para. 14).

- Interferences with the privacy of electronic communication cannot be justified by reference to some supposedly voluntary surrender of privacy on the Internet by individual users (para. 18).

- Collection of communications metadata can be just as bad in terms of privacy interference as the collection of the content of the communication (para. 19).

- Because of the chilling effect of surveillance: ‘The very existence of a mass surveillance programme thus creates an interference with privacy.’ (para. 20).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
Tags:

S.A.S. v France: Living Together or Increased Social Division?

Published on July 7, 2014        Author: 

On 1 July, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered, in a public hearing, its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v France. This case is a challenge of the French legislation prohibiting the wearing of face-covering clothing in all public spaces. In a post on this blog, Stephanie Berry discusses the case and points out a number of positive developments, including the balanced and well-reasoned nature of the judgment, the rejection of the gender equality and human dignity arguments for the burqaban, as she refers to the French law, and the consideration that this ban was not necessary for public safety in the absence of concrete evidence. However, Berry criticises the ECtHR for accepting that the ban pursues the legitimate aim of ‘living together’ under the ‘protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. Berry points out that this concept pursues a distinctly assimilationist agenda. I agree with Berry that this is a worrying development. In this post, I examine this concept of ‘living together’ in more detail and explain why this is such a worrying development. I will not discuss other aspects of the judgment.

First of all, what does this concept mean? The ECtHR mentions that the ‘Report on the wearing of the full-face veil on national territory’ criticises the wearing of the full-face veil as ‘a practice at odds with the values of the Republic’ and as ‘a denial of fraternity, constituting a negation of contact with others and a flagrant infringement of the French principle of living together’ (para. 17). It also refers to the explanatory memorandum to the relevant law, which states that ‘the wearing of the full veil is the sectarian manifestation of a rejection of the values of the Republic’; that ‘the voluntary and systematic concealment of the face is problematic because it is quite simply incompatible with the fundamental requirements of “living together” in French society’; and, that it ‘falls short of the minimum requirement of civility necessary for social interaction’ (para. 25). The French Government stated that one of the aims of the law was the observance of the minimum requirements of life in society because the face plays a significant role in human interaction, and the effect of concealing one’s face in public places is to break the social tie and to manifest a refusal of the principle of ‘living together’ (para 82, and for a similar argument from the Belgian government: para. 87).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

SAS v France: Does Anything Remain of the Right to Manifest Religion?

Published on July 2, 2014        Author: 

Niqab23The finding by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in SAS v France that the so-called ‘French burqa ban’ did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will not surprise many in the field of human rights. However, the judgment itself contains a number of developments and departures from the Court’s previous jurisprudence that warrant further consideration. In particular, the conclusion that the right to manifest religion may be restricted on the ground of ‘living together’ presents a worrying development, if this right is to have any practical meaning. (photo credit)

In SAS v France, the applicant challenged the French Loi no 2010–1192 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public of 11 October 2010, JO 12 October 2010 (herein after the ‘burqa ban’), which prohibits the covering of the face in public. The case differs from previous cases concerning the right of Muslim women to manifest religion by wearing religious attire, as the law imposed a blanket ban which extended to the social sphere. The applicant argued that by preventing her from wearing the burqa the ban violated her rights under articles 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 ECHR. The ECtHR completely dismissed her claims under articles 3, 10 and 11 ECHR, and focused its attention on articles 8, 9 and 14 ECHR, with a notable emphasis on article 9, the right to freedom of religion or belief.

The ECtHR’s judgment in SAS v France, for the most part, is balanced, well-reasoned and provides a thorough consideration of the French government’s justifications for the restriction of the applicant’s right to manifest her religion: public safety and ‘respect for the minimum set of values of an open and democratic society’. The latter category comprises three separate elements: gender equality, human dignity and ‘respect for the minimum requirements of life in society’ or ‘living together’. Whilst public safety is found within articles 8(2) and 9(2) ECHR, as noted by the ECtHR,  ‘respect for the minimum set of values of an open and democratic society’ does not correspond with any of the permissible limitations on article 8 and 9 ECHR (paras 116-7). Consequently, the ECtHR interpreted this justification as falling with the broad ‘protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ (para 117).

While the ECtHR established that the ‘burqa ban’ was prescribed by law (para 112), it did not accept that the ban pursued the ‘legitimate aims’ of gender equality and human dignity (paras 119-120). Specifically, in the context of gender equality, the ECtHR took ‘the view, … that a State Party cannot invoke gender equality in order to ban a practice that is defended by women – such as the applicant – in the context of the exercise of the rights enshrined in those provisions’ (para 119). This marks a significant departure from the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in the hijab cases. InDahlab v Switzerlandthe ECtHR had held that the hijab ‘appears to be imposed on women by a precept which is laid down in the Koran and which … is hard to square with the principle of gender equality’ . However, this approach was the subject of criticism, most notably by Judge Tulkens in her dissenting opinion in Leyla Şahın v Turkey:

It is not the Court’s role to make an appraisal of this type – in this instance a unilateral and negative one – of a religion or religious practice, just as it is not its role to determine in a general and abstract way the signification of wearing the headscarf or to impose its viewpoint on the applicant. (para 12)

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Eroding Religious Freedom Step by Step: France and the Baby Loup Case

Published on July 1, 2014        Author: 

cour de cassationLast Wednesday, the French Cour de Cassation (pictured left), in the Baby Loup case, permitted yet another restriction to be placed on the right to manifest religion in France.  The applicant had been fired from her job at Baby Loup, a private crèche and nursery, for violating the organisation’s rules of procedure. By wearing the hijab, the applicant purportedly breached the rule that

the principle of freedom of conscience and of religion of each staff member may not impede respect for the principles of laïcité [secularism] and neutrality that apply in the exercise of developmental activities, either on the premises of the crèche or during outside activities in which staff accompany children enrolled in the crèche.

The applicant will now take the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The decision of the Cour de Cassation in Baby Loup is made all the more significant by the pending judgment in SAS v France, due to be handed down by the ECtHR today. Will the ECtHR continue to permit the creeping erosion of the right to manifest religion (article 9 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)) by deferring to the State’s margin of appreciation?

The decision of the Cour de Cassation was based on Articles L. 1121-1 and L. 1321-3 of France’s Labour Code, which require any restrictions on an employee’s freedom of religion to be proportionate and justified by the nature of the employment. The Courtfound that the private nursery could not justify the restriction of the freedom of religion of the employee by direct reference to the principle of laïcité, as the principle applies only to public bodies. Nonetheless, it was willing to accept that the adoption of the principle of laïcité in the organisation’s rules of procedure was designed to protect children and to promote gender equality, rather than promoting and defending laïcité as a religious, political or philosophical belief. Consequently, the Cour de Cassation found that the restriction on the applicant’s freedom of religion was permissible.

The ECtHR is also likely to consider whether the freedom of religion of the applicant in Baby Loup can be justified by either the principle of secularism or ‘the rights and freedoms of others’ (article 9(2) ECHR). The recent cases of Ahmet Arslan and others v Turkey and Eweida and others v United Kingdom are directly relevantas previous ECtHR cases addressing the restriction of the right to manifest religion in the private sphere.

Ahmet Arslan concerned the arrest of members of the Aczimendi tankaı religious community for wearing religious clothing in public. The ECtHR found that the restrictions placed on the community by the authorities could not be justified by reference to the principle of secularism as the applicants were not State officials (para 48) and were not wearing religious clothing in a State institution such as a State school (para 49). Thus, Ahmet Arslan limits the circumstances in which States may justify the restriction of freedom of religion on the grounds of the principle of secularism to public officials and institutions. Consequently, it seems unlikely that France will be able to rely on the principle of laïcité in the Baby Loup case, as the nursery was a private organisation. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Keep Calm and Call (no, not Batman but …) Articles 31-32 VCLT: A Comment on Istrefi’s Recent Post on R.M.T. v. The UK

Published on June 19, 2014        Author: 

Panos MerkourisPanos Merkouris, LL.M (Athens) 2004; LL.M (UCL, London) 2005; Dr. iur. (Queen Mary, London) 2010 is Lecturer in Public International Law in the Faculty of Law at the University of Groningen.

In a recent post on R.M.T. v. The UK: Expanding Article 11 of the ECHR Through Systemic Integration’ Kushtrim Istrefi raises important issues with respect to the application and content of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Although I agree with the general conclusion that Article 31(3)(c) is not a panacea and should not be used as a backdoor for judicial activism, I think it pertinent to highlight certain issues as to the manner in which this conclusion is reached and in particular regarding the presumed content of Article 31(3)(c).

Firstly, let me clarify that this post is not about evolutive interpretation to which the ECtHR seems to be partial. Nonetheless, I agree with Eirik Bjorge’s comment to the above post, that this idea of ECHR as a living instrument is included in the preamble (‘…further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms’). Furthermore, the connection of evolutive interpretation with Article 31(3)(c) is particularly evident in ‘generic terms’. A ‘generic term’ can be understood either as ouverture du texte or renvoi mobile (Georgopoulos (2004) 108 RGDIP 132-134). In the former case, the openness of the term allows the content of the norm to change alongside the factual situation contemplated (‘evolution of fact’). Such an interpretation probably falls under Article 31(1). In the case of renvoi mobile, the norm, whenever interpreted, reflects the ‘evolution of the law’. As the law changes so does the content of that norm. In this case, evolutive interpretation could be understood as also being based on Article 31(3)(c).

Kushtrim’s main argument is that because ILO Convention No. 87 and the European Social Charter (ESC) are not binding on all member States of the Council of Europe (CoE), they probably do not fall within the scope of Article 31(3)(c). This conclusion is based on a restrictive interpretation of Article 31(3)(c), which holds that the Article should be read as ‘any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties to the treaty’ and not expansively, as ‘…between the parties to the dispute’. This restrictive interpretation allegedly finds support in EC-Biotech:

7.68… This understanding of the term “the parties” leads logically to the view that the rules of international law to be taken into account in interpreting the WTO agreements at issue in this dispute are those which are applicable in the relations between the WTO Members…

7.69 … Accordingly, based on our interpretation of Article 31(3)(c), we do not consider that in interpreting the relevant WTO agreements we are required to take into account other rules of international law which are not applicable to one of the Parties to this dispute.

With respect to this restrictive interpretation I would like to raise the following three issues: Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off

Gray v. Germany and the Extraterritorial Positive Obligation to Investigate

Published on May 28, 2014        Author: 

Last week a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided Gray v. Germany, no. 49278/09. The applicants were the sons of a British man who died in the UK after a doctor gave him the wrong drugs on a house visit. The doctor was German, and was hired by the UK National Health Service to provide out-of-hours home service to NHS patients. The doctor returned to Germany after the applicants’ father’s death. After a criminal malpractice investigation was conducted in the UK, Germany refused to extradite the doctor on the basis that criminal proceedings would ex officio take place in Germany. Those proceedings were later summarily completed, with the doctor sentenced to a fine, without notifying the applicants that the case would be disposed of summarily. The applicants claimed that this violated the procedural limb of Article 2 ECHR, read jointly with the overarching Article 1 obligation to secure human rights.

For various reasons, the Court rejected the applicants’ claim on the merits. But what makes this case interesting is that neither the German government, nor the Court sua sponte, thought that there was any Article 1 jurisdiction issue in saying that Germany had the positive obligation to investigate an unintentional death that took place in the United Kingdom, and at that at the hands of a private individual. Look at just how broad this position is – broader, indeed, than what I have argued for, since in my view a positive obligation would only apply if the death took place in an area controlled by the state or with state involvement.

Again, neither the Court nor the German government apparently thought that any Article 1 problem arose, presumably because the doctor was on German territory even though the applicant’s father had been in the UK. This well shows how in the small, politically unimportant cases people just tend to follow the universalist impulse and are oblivious to the existence of threshold applicability problems. Note, however, that the Court must ex officio confirm that the Convention applies and accordingly mind that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. If the issue was raised perhaps the Court would have decided it differently, but even so the case stands for the proposition that ECHR states parties have the duty to investigate even accidental deaths that took place outside any area under their control if the alleged perpetrator is located in such an area.

Stated in these terms, the implications of such an expansive approach are I think clear. Remember Alexander Litvinenko’s assassination in London, ostensibly at the hands of Russian agents? His family took a case against Russia to Strasbourg, which (I’ve been told) is on standby while issues around possible inquiry proceedings are being resolved in the UK. Suddenly that case becomes much easier for the applicants – regardless of whether the radioactive poison was administered by a Russian agent, if the alleged perpetrator is in Russia then Russia would have an Article 2 obligation to investigate. Similarly, if say a British tourist killed somebody in Thailand but then managed to escape back to the UK, the family of the deceased person in Thailand would have Article 2 rights vis-à-vis the UK and the UK would have to investigate the death, at least if it refused extradition. And this approach would a fortiori apply to cases where there is state involvement, e.g. when a soldier kills a civilian in an area not under the state’s effective control, but later returns to the state’s own territory.

In short, the Court seems to have actually created a comprehensive aut dedere, aut judicare principle under the ECHR, that applies even to unintentional taking of life, and probably did so unwittingly. Obviously we’ll have to wait and see whether Gray will have such an impact, or whether the Court will somehow manage to reverse course.

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off