Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy

Last updated

Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
Decided September 2012
Full case name Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
Case27765/09
ECLI https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/?i=001-109231
ChamberGrand Chamber
Language of proceedingsEnglish
Nationality of partiesItalian, Somalian, Eritrean
Ruling
The Italian Government infringed the principle of prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment, prohibition of collective expulsion, and the right to an effective remedy. The court required Italy to pay those affected 1,600 Euros.
Court composition
President
Nicolas Bratza
Judges
Keywords
  • Violation of Article 3 of the Convention
  • Violation of Article 4 of Protocol Number 4
  • Inhuman or degrading treatment

  • Article 13
  • Right to an effective remedy

In the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (application no. 27765/09), [1] before the European Court of Human Rights, the Grand Chamber of the Court found in February 2012 that by returning migrants to Libya, without examining their case, the state of Italy exposed the migrants to the risk of ill-treatment and amounted to a collective expulsion. The case concerned 24 migrants from Somalia end Eritrea that were travelling from Libya to Italy that were intercepted at sea by Italian authorities who sent them back to Libya. [1]

Contents

Background

The case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy concerned eleven Somalian nationals and thirteen individuals from Eritrea which were part of a larger group of approximately two hundred migrants that left from Libya, headed towards Italy, on three boats in the spring of 2009. The boats were intercepted by Italian flagged vessels of the Italian customs and coastguard, while within the jurisdiction of Maltese maritime search and rescue region, on 6 May 2009. Passengers of the boats were transferred by Italian military vessels to Tripoli, Libya, where they were handed over to local authorities. Applicants of the case claimed that while travelling back to Tripoli, they had not been informed by the Italian authorities where they were being taken. Neither were the identities of passengers checked by the Italian authorities according to the applicants. [2]

Before the Court, applicants of the case and their representatives claimed that the Italian authorities had put them in the risk of being sent back to Somalia or Eritrea, their countries of origin, which also would put them at risk of ill-treatment in their native countries. The applicants also put forward complaints before the court, regarding that they had been subject to collective expulsion which is prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. [3] Lastly, the applicants of the case complained that they had not had effective remedy in Italy against the alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention [4] and of Article 4 of the before mentioned Protocol.

Hearing of the case took place before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 22 June 2011. Several third parties were invited to attend the hearing, amongst which were organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. [2]

Judgement

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reached a unanimous conclusion in September 2012 on several grounds in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. Firstly, the Grand Chamber found that the applicants fell within the jurisdiction of Italy according to Article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Secondly, the Grand Chamber found that two violations had been made of Article 3 of the convention, on the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, as the applicants had been exposed to a risk of ill-treatment in Libya and the risk of repatriation to the countries of Eritrea and Somalia. Thirdly, Article 4 of Protocol Number 4 on the prohibition of collective expulsion had been violated. Finally, the Grand Chamber also found that Article 13, on the right to an effective remedy, had also been violated when taken in conjunction with Article 3 and 4 of the before mentioned protocol. [1]

In addition to the before mentioned, Italian authorities were held to pay 15,000 Euros to each of the applicants concerned, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and an additional amount of close to 1,600 Euros to be paid jointly to the applicants, to cover costs and expenses. The judgement, which was final, was made on 23 February 2012 in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in Strasbourg. The judgement was given by seventeen judges of the Grand Chamber, of which Nicolas Bratza from the United Kingdom was president. One judge, Pinto de Albuquerque, expressed a concurring opinion. [1]

Grounds for the Courts' findings

Amongst the grounds on which the court based its judgement was the fact that the migrants, the applicants of the case, were without doubt within Italian jurisdiction when their pushback to Libya was made. The court did not accept the description of the exercise that was made by the Italian government, which claimed it was a "rescue operation in the high seas". On the contrary, the individuals were according to the courts' findings, under the jurisdiction of Italian authorities, even though the authorities exercised their control and authority over the applicants outside of Italian territory. Secondly, the Court found that Italian authorities should have known that the migrants would be exposed to ill-treatment. This was for example based on the observation of the Court which found that domestic law and ratification of international treaties, that are meant to guarantee respect for fundamental human rights, were not sufficient in Libya. [2]

Thirdly, the court also found that the applicants might have been exposed to ill-treatment, both in Libya and in their countries of origin. The court found that there was "widespread insecurity" in Somalia and in Eritrea where individuals might be faced with torture and other inhumane treatment and conditions, as a result of having left the country irregularly. Furthermore, the court also found that there was no form of protection system for asylum seekers in Libya, in addition to the fact that the Geneva Convention had not been ratified by Libyan authorities. Therefore, the applicants might just as well be at risk of ill-treatment in Libya, according to The Courts' findings.

Regarding the complaint of expulsion, The Court found that as a result of the pushback to Libya having been exercised outside of the national territory of Italy, The Court found that the exercise of the Italian government did indeed take the form of collective expulsion. In addition, The Court found that despite the "special nature" of the maritime environment, the act did not take place in an area outside the law. Finally, The Court found that Italian authorities had not carried out a check of the identities or individual circumstances of the applicants, resulting in Italian authorities' actions to be of collective nature towards the migrants, which is in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. [2]

Reactions

In a press conference on 7 May 2009, Italian minister of the interior, claimed that the action carried out by the Italian authorities the day before were in accordance with bilateral agreements between the two countries of Italy and Libya that had come into force earlier the same year. Almost two years later, on 26 February 2011, the Italian minister of defence declared that the before mentioned bilateral agreements would be suspended as a result of change of events in Libya. [2]

The ruling of the ECHR Grand Chamber in the Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy has been phrased by human rights activists as a great victory. Amnesty International for example, claimed in a press release that the judgment was "historic" and that it "upholds migrants' rights". [5] Since the judgment of The Court, major human rights organisations have continued to document human rights abuses made against refugees and migrants in Libya. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have for example condemned Italy's and the EU's cooperation with Libyan authorities and the EU's support to the Libyan government to tackle matters of migration. [6] Others have highlighted that Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy is the very first case in which the ECHR delivers a judgment on interception-at-sea and have claimed that the case was crucial for the rights of irregular migrants. [7]

Furthermore, the case has raised the attention of scholars, for example regarding the matter of jurisdiction. It has for example been argued that the duties of Italy under ECHR were triggered only because the vessel of migrants came under the control of Italian official agents. Had that not been the case, Italy's duty towards the migrants might not have been invoked. [8] The case has also been said to be of significant value to European jurisprudence on subjects such as the extraterritorial application of human rights as well as the rules of governing interdiction of persons at the high seas. [9] Furthermore, scholars have claimed that, that with its judgement, it appears that the European Court of Human Rights has clarified the law of maritime interdiction and non-refoulement in the European Union, making the case an important milestone in regards to the obligations of European countries' obligations towards the human rights of migrants. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Franco Frattini</span> Italian politician (1957–2022)

Franco Frattini was an Italian politician and magistrate. From January to December 2022, Frattini served as president of the Council of State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Libya</span>

Human rights in Libya is the record of human rights upheld and violated in various stages of Libya's history. The Kingdom of Libya, from 1951 to 1969, was heavily influenced and educated by the British and Y.R.K companies. Under the King, Libya had a constitution. The kingdom, however, was marked by a feudal regime, where Libya had a low literacy rate of 10%, a low life expectancy of 57 years, and 40% of the population lived in shanties, tents, or caves. Illiteracy and homelessness were chronic problems during this era, when iron shacks dotted many urban centres on the country.

Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1989) is a landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which established that extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder and the potential exposure of said citizen to the death row phenomenon violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition to the precedent established by the judgment, the judgment specifically resulted in the United States and the State of Virginia committing to not seeking the death penalty against the German national involved in the case, and he was eventually extradited to the United States.

In the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 protects the right to life. The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 and 13, for those parties who are also parties to those protocols.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i> and <i>R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998. They related to the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol and prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the convention. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for "private and family life" to be considered, as well as Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Andrejeva v. Latvia (55707/00) was a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2009. It concerned ex parte proceedings and discrimination in calculating retirement pensions for non-citizens of Latvia.

<i>Lautsi v. Italy</i>

Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

<i>Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina</i>

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in December 2009, in the first judgment finding a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thereof, with regard to the arrangements of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 with regard to the constitutional arrangements on the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (15766/03) was a case heard before the European Court of Human Rights, concerning activities of Roma-only classes in some schools of Croatia, which were held legal by the Constitutional Court of Croatia in 2007 by a decision no. U-III-3138/2002.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. He was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined 3000 Swiss francs.

Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque is a Portuguese judge born in Beira, Mozambique and was the judge of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Portugal from April 2011 to March 2020.

Saadi v Italy was a case of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in February 2008, in which the Court unanimously reaffirmed and extended principles established in Chahal v United Kingdom regarding the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement and the obligations of a state under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In September 1967, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands brought the Greek case to the European Commission of Human Rights, alleging violations of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by the Greek junta, which had taken power earlier that year. In 1969, the Commission found serious violations, including torture; the junta reacted by withdrawing from the Council of Europe. The case received significant press coverage and was "one of the most famous cases in the Convention's history", according to legal scholar Ed Bates.

Operation HERA is a joint maritime operation by the European Union established to manage migration flows and stop irregular migrants along the Western African Route, from the western shores of Africa to the Canary Islands, Spain. The operation was implemented following an increase in migrants arriving at the Canary Islands in 2006. It remains an annual operation managed by Spain and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX).

Fedotova and Others v. Russia was a case submitted by six Russian nationals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Pushback is a term that refers to "a set of state measures by which refugees and migrants are forced back over a border – generally immediately after they crossed it – without consideration of their individual circumstances and without any possibility to apply for asylum". Pushbacks violate the prohibition of collective expulsion of asylum seekers in Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and often violate the international law prohibition on non-refoulement.

<i>Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant died in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 European Court of Human Rights. "CASE OF HIRSI JAMAA AND OTHERS v. ITALY". ECHR. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 ECHR. "Returning migrants to Libya without examining their case exposed them to a risk of ill-treatment and amounted to a collective expulsion" (PDF). ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  3. ↑ ECHR. "Guide on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights" (PDF). Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  4. ↑ ECHR. "European Convention on Human Rights" (PDF). Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  5. ↑ Amnesty International (23 February 2012). "Italy: "Historic" European Court judgment upholds migrants' rights". amnesty.org. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  6. ↑ Human Rights Watch (13 November 2019). "Italy Shares Responsibility for Libya Abuses against Migrants". hrw.org. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  7. ↑ Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte (March 2012). "Interception-at-sea: Illegal as currently practiced – Hirsi and Others v. Italy". strasbourgobservers.com. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  8. ↑ Mann, Itmar (2018). "Maritime Legal Black Holes: Migration and Rightlessness in International Law". The European Journal of International Law. 29 (2): 347–372. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chy029 .
  9. ↑ Papanicolopulu, Irini (2013). "Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy". The American Journal of International Law. 107 (2): 417–423. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0417. S2CID   141550999.
  10. ↑ Holberg, R. K. (2012). "Italy's policy of pushing back african migrants on the high seas rejected by the european court of human rights in the case of hirsi jamaa & others v. italy". Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. 26 (2).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.