Home International Tribunals Archive for category "European Court of Human Rights"

Slovenia v. Croatia: The First EU Inter-State Case before the ECtHR

Published on October 17, 2016        Author: 

On 15 September 2016 the Government of Slovenia lodged an inter-State application against the Republic of Croatia before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), related to the claims of Ljubljanska banka towards Croatian companies. Pursuant to Article 33 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the Republic of Slovenia informed the Court that the Republic of Croatia had violated the provisions of the Convention when the latter’s judicial and executive authorities systematically undertook actions to unlawfully deny Ljubljanska banka the right to property. For a period of 25 years the bank has not been able to recover its claims from Croatian companies. The application states that this has allowed the debtors of Ljubljanska banka in Croatia to avoid repaying their debt – currently estimated to be 360 million Euro. This amount is very similar to the one Slovenian taxpayers were requested to pay after the Grand Chamber delivered its decision in Ališić two years ago, one of the largest cases in ECtHR’s history considering its massive financial implications for Slovenia’s two million population. Although one might say that the Slovenian government timed its application so as for the recent Croatian elections to pass, the date of the application was in fact more closely related to the latest decision of the Croatian Constitutional Court on the subject-matter which was adopted in March this year.

A wider legal audience, which may otherwise not be interested in Yugoslav succession issues, might nevertheless show an interest in the present case since it presents the first inter-State case before the ECtHR between two EU Member States, and also because it raises the question of potential concurrence of jurisdiction between the ECtHR and the CJEU (a topic much debated under the EU’s accession to the ECHR negotiations). Although current EU Member States have in the past been involved in mutual disputes before the ECtHR,  both contracting parties have never been EU Member States at the time of those proceedings (application by Austria v. Italy was lodged in 1960 (No. 788/60); Denmark and Sweden filed an application against Greece in 1967 (No. 3321/67 and 3323/67); while two cases of Ireland v. UK date back to 1971 and 1972 (No. 5310/71 and 5451/72)).

The application of Slovenia’s Government against Croatia is also of importance as it is an unusual case in the sense that Article 33 ECHR is being applied for the protection of interests of a legal, rather than a natural, person (e.g. the case of Georgia v. Russia (I) (No. 13255/07) concerned the alleged collective expulsion of Georgian nationals from the Russian Federation). The general public of Slovenia has for this reason responded to the news of the application with doubts as to whether legal persons could in fact be considered to have “human” rights. However, despite the fact that only Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR on the protection of property expressly recognizes legal persons as recipients of fundamental rights, several other human rights in the ECHR are also granted to them. Apart from the recent application of Ukraine v. Russia, which partly attempts to protect the rights of legal persons, all other inter-State actions before the ECtHR have concerned natural persons.

As the long journey towards ECtHR’s decision in the case at hand has only just begun, this post shortly describes the background of the case.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Procedural Regulation of Detention 

Published on October 7, 2016        Author: 

The latest post in the Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict is by Lawrence Hill- Cawthorne on the procedural regulation of detention.

I am pleased to have been asked to write a short blog post to outline some of the issues I raised as a discussant for the panel on the procedural regulation of detention at the Fourth Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict, which took place in Oxford this summer. This is of course an area in which we have recently seen considerable controversy and rapid developments in practice, with cases such as the Serdar Mohammed litigation (on which see here and here) and Hassan v UK (on which see here) dominating much of the recent debates.

The present post does not seek to repeat the above debates but instead it picks out a few controversial points from these much broader discussions that remain unresolved. Everything that is said here is explored in more detail in a recent book that I have written on this topic. The questions that I wish to address here are:

  1. In light of Hassan, which requires that, when making an assessment of compliance with international human rights law (IHRL) in an international armed conflict, a renvoi must be made to international humanitarian law (IHL), what controversies persist concerning:

    1. The review procedures for civilian internment and
    2. The procedural regulation of combatant internment?
  2. To what extent has the law of international and non-international armed conflict converged here?

Detention in International Armed Conflict

The Hassan judgment offered a view as to the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and IHL, reading into Article 5 ECHR the grounds and procedures governing internment under the latter regime. Though seemingly simple, the IHL rules on internment, and the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) reasoning in Hassan, leave a number of questions unanswered. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

UK to Derogate from the ECHR in Armed Conflict

Published on October 5, 2016        Author: 

At the Conservative party conference this week, the UK Prime Minister and her defence secretary announced that the UK will derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in times of armed conflict. I have written before that such derogations – if appropriately used – can be a valuable tool in regulating the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law, by providing much needed clarity and flexibility. I hence have no problem with the principle of the idea – indeed, I have argued in particular that the dicta of some of the judges of UK’s highest courts to the effect that the ECHR cannot be derogated from extraterritorially are not to be followed. I do have a problem, however, with how this derogation idea is now being sold to the British public and for what purpose. In that regard, my comments in this post are caveated by the unfortunate fact that the specifics of the derogation plan are yet to be published – we know that there will be a ‘presumed’ derogation, but not from which rights and under what exact circumstances.

Let me first deal with the political salesmanship. To start with, there’s the usual (and forgivable) pandering – Theresa May thus opens her pitch by saying that “Our Armed Forces are the best in the world” and that her government “will ensure that our troops are recognised for the incredible job they do. Those who serve on the frontline will have our support when they come home.” Oh, please. By what metric exactly are the British armed forces “the best in the world”? By their tactical combat effectiveness? By their actual achievement of specific strategic goals (in which they’ve been constantly hampered by the underfunding, underequipping and wishful thinking on the part of their political masters)? By their compliance with the law of armed conflict? The Chilcot inquiry’s findings with respect to the armed forces’ performance in Basra do not exactly support the “best in the world/incredible job” label.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: The Obligation to Investigate Violations of IHL

Published on September 30, 2016        Author: 

This is the third post in our joint blog series arising out of the 2016 Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict.

The author writes in his personal capacity, the views expressed in this post are his own, and not those of the Royal Navy or UK Ministry of Defence.


Understanding the parameters of a state’s obligation to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law is crucial to both the legitimacy of armed forces, and their military effectiveness.   If a state was unwilling, or unable, to investigate egregious behaviour by their armed forces this would not only contravene their obligations under the Geneva Conventions it may lead to investigations by the International Criminal Court for those states parties to the Rome Statute, but also attract significant opprobrium.  Equally, in planning military operations, significant resources are often required to properly investigate alleged violations of IHL.  This in turn requires trained personnel in sufficient numbers to perform this function, and robust military doctrine and national legislation to guide it.  This brief paper seeks to explore the extent of the obligation to investigate alleged violations of IHL, what constitutes a ‘compliant’ investigation, and how this requirement interacts with the obligation to investigate in international human rights law.

1. To what extent does LOAC/IHL provide an obligation to investigate alleged violations?

International Armed Conflict

Rule 158 of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Study on Customary International Law describes the obligation of states to investigate war crimes in the following terms:

States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.

The ICRC Rule 158 is reflected in numerous international instruments and supported by academic opinion. Additionally, the preamble to the Statute of the International Criminal Court recalls “the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.”   Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Al-Saadoon and the Duty to Investigate

Published on September 16, 2016        Author: 

On September 9, a UK Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Al-Saadoon & Ors v. Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWCA Civ 811]. Much of that case revolved around when and how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to the conduct of a State beyond its own borders (i.e., extraterritorially) in situations of armed conflict where that State is in some way linked to a use of force that results in death.

This post focuses on a separate issue in the judgment: the duty to criminally investigate violations of non-refoulement (under Article 3, ECHR) and arbitrary deprivation of liberty (Article 5, ECHR). The non-refoulement issue arose after two individuals who U.K. military forces captured in Iraq claimed they were transferred to U.S. custody and in whose hands they were subsequently ill-treated. The Article 5 issue arose after U.K. military forces operating in Iraq detained several individuals who claimed to have had their Article 5 rights violated whilst in U.K. custody. The question that Lord Justice Lloyd Jones had to resolve was whether, under the ECHR, the U.K. had a duty to conduct criminal investigations into these alleged violations.

Lloyd Jones LJ, agreeing with Mr. Justice Leggatt’s prior High Court judgment, said that no such obligation to investigate exists for all Art 3 non-refoulement and all Article 5 violations. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

The European Convention on Human Rights in Non-International Armed Conflict – Revisiting Serdar Mohammed

Published on August 22, 2016        Author: 

The UK Government’s re-commitment in May to replacing the Human Rights Act (HRA) immediately followed the Supreme Court’s further hearings on one of the more controversial cases under the Act – the Serdar Mohammed claim against the Ministry of Defence (on which additional hearings are expected later this year). The claimant, who on the assumed facts was a Taliban commander detained by the UK military in Afghanistan for 110 days in 2010, alleges a breach of his right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

As readers will recall, the lower courts upheld this claim, prompting controversy in the press and in academia. Preventative detention (or “internment”) of the enemy is widely regarded as an essential incident of armed conflict. The suggestion that the ECHR prohibited the UK from detaining a Taliban commander to prevent his engagement in hostilities against British forces raised obvious concerns about the application of the ECHR in armed conflict, also fuelling further criticism of the HRA.

Since international humanitarian law (IHL) norms designed for the context of hostilities do not prohibit internment in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) like the Afghan conflict in 2010, much of the legal debate focused on the content of these norms and their relationship with the ECHR. The High Court decision, declining to use IHL to override the ECHR, was criticised as “an outright rejection of the applicability of IHL to the question of who may be detained for what reasons and following which procedure” in NIACs.

Rather than rehearsing the extensive debates (see a small sample here and here) over whether IHL norms authorise detention in NIACs, this post challenges an assumption about the interpretation of the ECHR which underlies the arguments raised by both parties to the claim. Its focus is on a specific provision of the ECHR and its application to situations like that in which the claimant was detained – state participation in NIACs outside their own territory (extra-territorial NIACs).

The result is an alternative approach, based on a context-sensitive interpretation of the ECHR complemented by IHL, which helps address the concern that the ECHR and HRA are inherently unsuited to conditions of armed conflict. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Turkey’s Derogation from Human Rights Treaties – An Update

Published on August 18, 2016        Author: 

In an earlier post of 27 July I provided a first assessment of Turkey’s declared derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and an assessment what kind of measures could be expected, as derogations both from the ECHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This new post provides an update, partly in response to commentators.

On 11 August, the United Nations published Turkey’s notification notification of derogations from the ICCPR. According to its text, the actual measure was ‘effected’ more than a week earlier, on 2 August. Turkey’s notification, dated on 21 July, refers to the 90-day state of emergency that had been declared on 20 July under domestic law. The most interesting element in Turkey’s ICCPR notification is that it provides a list of articles from which Turkey ‘may’ derogate:

The decision was published in the Official Gazette and approved by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 21 July 2016. In this process, measures taken may involve derogation from obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding Articles 2/3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27, as permissible in Article 4 of the said Covenant.

Again Turkey follows the recent example of France in specifying the articles under the ICCPR but not under the ECHR, and by not being explicit what the actual derogations are, instead only stating that derogations from the ICCPR ‘may’ result from measures taken pursuant to the state of emergency.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Strasbourg Censures Georgia over Detention of Former Prime Minister – the impact of an Article 18 violation

Published on August 2, 2016        Author: 

In December 2013, former Georgian Prime Minister Vano Merabishvili was hauled out of his Tbilisi prison cell in the middle of the night, and, with his head covered, was driven to an unknown destination. On arrival, he found himself before the Chief Public Prosecutor and the head of the Georgian prison service. Merabishvili was offered a ‘deal’, and was asked for information about the death of the former Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania in 2005, and to provide information about secret offshore bank accounts which they claimed were owned by the former President, Mikheil Saakashvili. Merabishvili turned down any deal, describing what he had been told as a conspiracy theory and nonsense. The Chief Prosecutor then told Merabishvili that his detention conditions would worsen if he did not agree to cooperate with the authorities. In his statement to the European Court, Merabishvili said that the ‘deal’ proposed also involved his release and guarantees to leave the country with his family.

Within three days of the incident, when Merabishvili next appeared at the city court in Tbilisi, he described what had happened to him. Immediately, the Prime Minister, Minister of Prisons and Chief Public Prosecutor all denied that the events happened at all and rejected out of hand calls for an investigation.

However, in a judgment published on 14th June the European Court of Human Rights described Merabishvili’s account as ‘particularly credible and convincing’ Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Turkey’s Derogation from the ECHR – What to Expect?

Published on July 27, 2016        Author: 

In the aftermath of the failed 15 July coup, Turkey’s government declared a state of emergency and subsequently on 21 July notified the Council of Europe that it “may” derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  So far there is no information of a possible notification to the United Nations concerning derogations from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Turkey’s ECHR formal notification was preceded by widely reported expectations, fuelled also by a Council of Europe press release, that it was going to “suspend” the ECHR (presumably as a whole) and, interestingly, followed by a 25 July communication to the Council of Europe (see below) that appears to downplay the severity of the derogations.

Derogations from some but not all human rights are permissible under ECHR Article 15 and, similarly, under ICCPR Article 4 when a state is faced with a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation and officially proclaims a state of emergency. A failed military coup would prima facie qualify as serious enough a situation that can be addressed through declaring a state of emergency in the process of restoring normalcy.

Basing myself on the assumption that Turkey’s decision to derogate from some of the ECHR rights as such is to be assessed as permissible, I will below address the constraints that a country is facing under human rights law when lawfully derogating. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

The New Arbitrariness and Competing Constitutionalisms: Remarks on ECtHR Grand Chamber Al-Dulimi

Published on June 30, 2016        Author: 

In a judgment published on 21 June 2016, the ECtHR Grand Chamber confirmed a violation of Art. 6(1) ECHR by Switzerland. The history of the case is summarized in my post on the chamber judgment of 26 November 2013. Al-Dulimi was considered by the relevant UN sanctions committee to be the former head of finance of the Iraqi secret service under Saddam Hussain (a fact which he apparently never denied), and he ran the firm Montana Management, registered under the laws of Panama. Al-Dulimi’s bank accounts in Switzerland had been frozen in 2004 by Switzerland pursuant to Resolution 1483 (2003). The main findings of the new Grand Chamber judgment are reported by Marko Milanovic in his post.

As Marko already pointed out, the reasoning of the Grand Chamber was carried only by a slim majority. The judgment followed the Chamber judgment in three points: First, it sought to harmonize the obligations of Member States under the UN Charter and under the ECHR, and thereby denied the conflict and evaded the question of legal consequences flowing from Art. 103 UN Charter. Second, the Grand Chamber found that although the Swiss authorities’ and courts’ refusal to review the complaint pursued the legitimate objective of maintaining international peace and security, the denial of any substantive review was disproportionate and therefore impaired “the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court“ (para. 151). Third, as the Chamber had done before, no just satisfaction was awarded to the applicant.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly