Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:10:35.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland

European Court of Human Rights.  21 June 2016 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Human rights — Right to a fair hearing — Right of access to court — Freezing and confiscation of applicants’ assets — Applicants complaining of lack of procedure complying with Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Scope of case before Grand Chamber — Admissibility of application — Whether compatible ratione personae and ratione materiae with Convention provisions — Whether applicants’ right of access to court restricted — Whether restriction justified — Whether restriction pursuing legitimate aim — Whether proportionate — International normative context — Whether conflict of international obligations — Extent of obligations of respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — United Nations Charter — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Respondent State’s obligations under United Nations Charter and European Convention — Whether conflict of obligations — Article 103 of UN Charter asserting primacy of obligations deriving from Charter in event of conflict — Whether primacy rule engaged — Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution at national level — Whether respondent State having any discretion in implementation — UN Security Council resolution — Interpretation of resolution — Whether restrictive interpretation legitimate — Whether courts of respondent State prevented from reviewing in terms of human rights protection measures taken at national level to implement resolution — Whether respondent State can rely on binding nature of Security Council resolutions — Whether respondent State having duty to ensure measures not arbitrary — Whether practical measures taken by Swiss authorities to improve situation of applicants adequate — Whether respondent State faced with real conflict of obligations — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Rights and freedoms enshrined in European Convention — Whether guarantees of fair hearing jus cogens norm — Applicability of relevant public international law norms — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — United Nations Charter — Article 103 of UN Charter asserting primacy of obligations deriving from Charter in event of conflict with obligations arising from another international agreement — UN Security Council resolutions — Whether conflict between obligations arising under UN Charter and European Convention — Interpretation of Security Council resolutions — Presumption of intention not to impose on Member States obligation breaching fundamental human rights principles — Harmonization of treaty obligations — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

International organizations — United Nations — Security Council — Maintenance of international peace and security — Threat of terrorism — Economic sanctions — Security Council resolutions — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Role of United Nations in promoting human rights — Presumption of intention not to impose on Member States obligation breaching fundamental human rights principles — United Nations sanctions system — UN Sanctions Committee — Criticisms — Whether procedures adequate — Whether conflict of obligations under UN Charter and European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether primacy rule of Article 103 of UN Charter engaged

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Role of Court with respect to acts of UN Security Council — State relying on need to apply Security Council resolution to justify limitation on Convention right — Whether resolution consonant with Convention — Examination of resolution’s wording and scope — Purposes of United Nations — Maintenance of international peace and security — Promotion of respect for human rights — Article 24(2) of UN Charter

Economics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Security Council resolutions — Implementation at national level — Freezing and confiscation of applicants’ assets — UN sanctions regime — UN Sanctions Committee — Procedures — Listing and delisting of applicants — Respondent State implementing resolution — Whether text of resolution allowing for delay necessary to grant access to a court to examine whether names appearing arbitrarily on the UN sanctions list — Whether implementing State having discretion — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Terrorism — Threat of terrorism — Maintenance of international peace and security — Security Council — Chapter VII of United Nations Charter — Security Council resolutions — Implementation at national level — Economic sanctions — Freezing and confiscation of applicants’ assets — Guarantees under Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018

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.)