Lijst van arresten
Name What Part of learning
material
The Wackenheim Appeal form the dwarfs, because they What do human
case/ dwarf found that other people can’t define what rights do
tossing is dignified way of making money (who’s - Protect
dignity) dignity
CJEU : Kadi and Al UN security council froze funds, because A multilayerd
Barakaat of suspected collaboration with Osama international system
international bin Laden of sovereign states
Foundation BUT there has to be a standard to take - Economic
this sanctions : lack of being heard + sanctions
proper judicial oversight
ECtHR : golder v. Violation of the right to go to court, its not Sources of
UK (21/02/1975) because you are in prison these rights international human
don’t count anymore rights
Can be interpreted implicit out of the - Treaties =>
article interpretation
Negative
obligations:
- Implied
limitations
Fair trail: right to a
court
Marckx vs. Interpretation on the protection of family Regional
Belgium It has evolved over time mechanisms : ECHR
- Rights
The norm isn’t clear enough to impose guaranteed –
concrete rights to citizens dynamic
interpretation
Sefl-executing v.
specific legislation
ECtHR, Behrami People can’t bring NATO to court Who can go to court
and Behrami v.
France and
Saramati vs.
France, Germany
and Norway
1
, Name What Part of learning
material
Bosphorus Airways States remain responsible for their acts Who can you take to
vs. Ireland as members of an international court
organisation - ECHR ruled that Ireland's
seizure of a Bosphorus Airways aircraft, The intermediate
done to comply with EU & UN sanctions way
against Yugoslavia, was not a violation
of the airline's property rights. The court
established a presumption of equivalent
protection of fundamental rights when a
state implements international
obligations that are binding on a
member state, holding that Ireland did
not violate the Convention by enforcing
EU law that provided similar protection
to the European Convention on Human
Rights
Nada vs. States remain responsible for their acts Who can you take to
Switzerland as members of an international court
organisation - Having regard to all the
circumstances, the restrictions imposed
on the applicant's freedom of movement
for a considerable period of time had not
struck a fair balance between his right to
the protection of his private and family
life and the legitimate aims pursued.
They violated the European convention
on Human Rights by applying UN
security council sanctions
Al-Dulimi and States remain responsible for their acts Who can you take to
Montana as members of an international court
managements vs. organisation – violated the European
Switzerland convention by following UN security
council sanctions
Dudgeon vs. UK He was a homosexual, but wasn’t Potential victim
sanctioned yet, but knew he would be Right to respect
e ected someday by this rule private life
Verein Will be impacted by the climate Potential victim
Klimatseniorinnen someday
vs. Switzerland Right to respect for
private life:
environmental
protection
Fair trail
2
, Name What Part of learning
material
Korolev vs. Russia First case were a minimum was set: Significant disadvantage
the amount was to small
De minimis non curat praetor – the
court does not deal with trivial
matters
Burmych vs. The court bundled all the cases and Repetitive cases
Ukraine then solved them with 1 decision
Netherlands and It is over 500 pages long Complex chamber cases
Ukraine vs. Russia
Avontins vs. Latvia Here they find the most problems The intermediate way
between the 2 laws : asylum,
recognition of judgements
H.F. and Others A state’s jurisdictional competence is Territorial jurisdiction
vs. France primarily territorial
AL-Skeini vs. UK The use of force by a state’s agents Exception : extra-
operating outside its territory may territorial jurisdiction
bring the individual thereby brought
under the control of the State’s
authorities : e ective control over the
area + authority and control over the
individuals
Hirsi Jamaa vs. The use of force by a state’s agents Exception : extra-
Italy operating outside its territory may territorial jurisdiction
bring the individual thereby brought
under the control of the State’s
authorities : jurisdiction at sea – Italy
had jurisdiction because the migrant
were on Italian military vessels
Control over persons = jurisdiction
under art. 1
Cyprus vs. Turkey Following lawful or unlawful military Exception : extra-
action, on a contracting state territorial jurisdiction
exercises e ective control of an area
outside the national territory : Turkey Supervision of the
had jurisdiction even though T did not execution of judgments :
formally annex C, it exercised by the court itself
e ective control there through its
military presence Right to property: post.
Exception : ECHR kept the case under Obligations- measures
its own supervision, due to ongoing against criminal
nature of violations damages
3
, Name What Part of learning
material
Ilasçu vs. Moldava Russia was the occupier ad the for is Infraterritorial
and Russia responsible (shared responsibility) jurisdiction
Mozer vs. Moldava Russia responsible : de facto Infraterritorial
and Russia occupation & control jurisdiction
Bankovic vs. It wasn’t su icient to establish Instantaneous acts/
Belgium and others jurisdiction => inadmissible omissions outside
Not enough e ective control over territory
persons or area
Ben el Mahi vs. Could a non-resident foreign national E ects acts/
Denmark bring a case before the Court for an omissions outside
alleged violation that occurred in territory
Denmark? => no
Not within Denmark’s jurisdiction
Soering vs. UK Soering was wanted in the United Soering exception
States for a double murder committed
in Virginia, The UK planned to extradite Right to life
him to the USA. => death penalty
waiting for him
Art. 3 has extraterritorial e ect in
removal cases
M.N. and others vs. They applied at the Belgian embassy in Intensity link with
Belgium Beirut for a humanitarian visa to enter jurisdiction
Belgium and apply for asylum. Denied
= inadmissible, not within BE
jurisdiction, or can’t just create it
A State doesn’t have ECHR jurisdiction
over visa applicants located abroad
just because they apply at its embassy
Hirst n°2 vs. UK Prisoners were deprived of there rights Negative obligations :
to vote => failed the 3 step-test - Implied
Wasn’t proportionated limitations
RTBf vs. Belgium The Belgian public broadcaster RTBF Neg. obligations :
was prevented from broadcasting a - Limitations :
programme about a doctor’s alleged legal basis
malpractice due to a court injunction Freedom of speech:
obtained by the doctor. Even after the - 3step-test
doctor was later convicted, the
injunction was not lifted, blocking the
broadcast indefinitely. The Court
rea irmed that prior restraints on
media reporting are subject to strict
scrutiny and are rarely compatible with
Article 10.
4
Name What Part of learning
material
The Wackenheim Appeal form the dwarfs, because they What do human
case/ dwarf found that other people can’t define what rights do
tossing is dignified way of making money (who’s - Protect
dignity) dignity
CJEU : Kadi and Al UN security council froze funds, because A multilayerd
Barakaat of suspected collaboration with Osama international system
international bin Laden of sovereign states
Foundation BUT there has to be a standard to take - Economic
this sanctions : lack of being heard + sanctions
proper judicial oversight
ECtHR : golder v. Violation of the right to go to court, its not Sources of
UK (21/02/1975) because you are in prison these rights international human
don’t count anymore rights
Can be interpreted implicit out of the - Treaties =>
article interpretation
Negative
obligations:
- Implied
limitations
Fair trail: right to a
court
Marckx vs. Interpretation on the protection of family Regional
Belgium It has evolved over time mechanisms : ECHR
- Rights
The norm isn’t clear enough to impose guaranteed –
concrete rights to citizens dynamic
interpretation
Sefl-executing v.
specific legislation
ECtHR, Behrami People can’t bring NATO to court Who can go to court
and Behrami v.
France and
Saramati vs.
France, Germany
and Norway
1
, Name What Part of learning
material
Bosphorus Airways States remain responsible for their acts Who can you take to
vs. Ireland as members of an international court
organisation - ECHR ruled that Ireland's
seizure of a Bosphorus Airways aircraft, The intermediate
done to comply with EU & UN sanctions way
against Yugoslavia, was not a violation
of the airline's property rights. The court
established a presumption of equivalent
protection of fundamental rights when a
state implements international
obligations that are binding on a
member state, holding that Ireland did
not violate the Convention by enforcing
EU law that provided similar protection
to the European Convention on Human
Rights
Nada vs. States remain responsible for their acts Who can you take to
Switzerland as members of an international court
organisation - Having regard to all the
circumstances, the restrictions imposed
on the applicant's freedom of movement
for a considerable period of time had not
struck a fair balance between his right to
the protection of his private and family
life and the legitimate aims pursued.
They violated the European convention
on Human Rights by applying UN
security council sanctions
Al-Dulimi and States remain responsible for their acts Who can you take to
Montana as members of an international court
managements vs. organisation – violated the European
Switzerland convention by following UN security
council sanctions
Dudgeon vs. UK He was a homosexual, but wasn’t Potential victim
sanctioned yet, but knew he would be Right to respect
e ected someday by this rule private life
Verein Will be impacted by the climate Potential victim
Klimatseniorinnen someday
vs. Switzerland Right to respect for
private life:
environmental
protection
Fair trail
2
, Name What Part of learning
material
Korolev vs. Russia First case were a minimum was set: Significant disadvantage
the amount was to small
De minimis non curat praetor – the
court does not deal with trivial
matters
Burmych vs. The court bundled all the cases and Repetitive cases
Ukraine then solved them with 1 decision
Netherlands and It is over 500 pages long Complex chamber cases
Ukraine vs. Russia
Avontins vs. Latvia Here they find the most problems The intermediate way
between the 2 laws : asylum,
recognition of judgements
H.F. and Others A state’s jurisdictional competence is Territorial jurisdiction
vs. France primarily territorial
AL-Skeini vs. UK The use of force by a state’s agents Exception : extra-
operating outside its territory may territorial jurisdiction
bring the individual thereby brought
under the control of the State’s
authorities : e ective control over the
area + authority and control over the
individuals
Hirsi Jamaa vs. The use of force by a state’s agents Exception : extra-
Italy operating outside its territory may territorial jurisdiction
bring the individual thereby brought
under the control of the State’s
authorities : jurisdiction at sea – Italy
had jurisdiction because the migrant
were on Italian military vessels
Control over persons = jurisdiction
under art. 1
Cyprus vs. Turkey Following lawful or unlawful military Exception : extra-
action, on a contracting state territorial jurisdiction
exercises e ective control of an area
outside the national territory : Turkey Supervision of the
had jurisdiction even though T did not execution of judgments :
formally annex C, it exercised by the court itself
e ective control there through its
military presence Right to property: post.
Exception : ECHR kept the case under Obligations- measures
its own supervision, due to ongoing against criminal
nature of violations damages
3
, Name What Part of learning
material
Ilasçu vs. Moldava Russia was the occupier ad the for is Infraterritorial
and Russia responsible (shared responsibility) jurisdiction
Mozer vs. Moldava Russia responsible : de facto Infraterritorial
and Russia occupation & control jurisdiction
Bankovic vs. It wasn’t su icient to establish Instantaneous acts/
Belgium and others jurisdiction => inadmissible omissions outside
Not enough e ective control over territory
persons or area
Ben el Mahi vs. Could a non-resident foreign national E ects acts/
Denmark bring a case before the Court for an omissions outside
alleged violation that occurred in territory
Denmark? => no
Not within Denmark’s jurisdiction
Soering vs. UK Soering was wanted in the United Soering exception
States for a double murder committed
in Virginia, The UK planned to extradite Right to life
him to the USA. => death penalty
waiting for him
Art. 3 has extraterritorial e ect in
removal cases
M.N. and others vs. They applied at the Belgian embassy in Intensity link with
Belgium Beirut for a humanitarian visa to enter jurisdiction
Belgium and apply for asylum. Denied
= inadmissible, not within BE
jurisdiction, or can’t just create it
A State doesn’t have ECHR jurisdiction
over visa applicants located abroad
just because they apply at its embassy
Hirst n°2 vs. UK Prisoners were deprived of there rights Negative obligations :
to vote => failed the 3 step-test - Implied
Wasn’t proportionated limitations
RTBf vs. Belgium The Belgian public broadcaster RTBF Neg. obligations :
was prevented from broadcasting a - Limitations :
programme about a doctor’s alleged legal basis
malpractice due to a court injunction Freedom of speech:
obtained by the doctor. Even after the - 3step-test
doctor was later convicted, the
injunction was not lifted, blocking the
broadcast indefinitely. The Court
rea irmed that prior restraints on
media reporting are subject to strict
scrutiny and are rarely compatible with
Article 10.
4
