Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:16:31.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

McElhinney v. Ireland, Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, Fogarty v. United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Marius Emberland
Marius Emberland*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , July 2002 , pp. 699 - 705
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

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.)

References

1 Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5,213 UNTS 222 [hereinafter European Convention]. The Convention, as well as the decisions and other materials of the European Court of Human Rights, is available online at the Court’s Web site, <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

2 McElhinney v. Ireland, App. No. 31253/96 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21,2001) [hereinafter McElhinney judgment].

3 McElhinney v. Williams, 31.R. 382 (1995). As previously pronounced by the Irish Supreme Court in Government of Canada v. Employment Appeals Tribunal, 2 I.R. 484 (1992), the doctrine of sovereign immunity is considered an integral part of Irish constitutional law.

4 Fogarty v. United Kingdom, App. No. 37112/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21,2001) [hereinafter Fogarty judgment].

5 The case before the industrial tribunal remains unreported.

6 Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21, 2001) [hereinafter Al-Adsani judgment].

7 See Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait, 103 ILR 420 (C.A. 1994), leave to appeal denied, 107 ILR 536 (H.L. 1996) (discussed by Michael Byers in 67 Brit. Y.B. Int’l. L. 537 (1996)).

8 The right to access to court follows by implication from the text in European Convention Article 6 (1), as first stated by the ECHR in Colder v. United Kingdom, 18 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1975). The relevant portion of Article 6(1) provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations . . . , everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

9 European Convention Article 3 provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

10 See Rules 24, 43(2), and 71 of the ECHR Rules of Court.

11 The Court comprised Judges Wildhaber (Switzerland), Palm (Sweden), Rozakis (Greece), Costa (France), Ferrari Bravo (Italy) Jörundsson (Iceland), Caflisch (Liechtenstein), Loucaides (Cyprus), CabralBarreto (Portugal), Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Bratza (United Kingdom), Zupancic (Slovenia), Vajic (Croatia), Pellonpää (Finland), Tsatsa-Nikolovska (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Levits (Latvia), Kovler (Russia), and, in McElhinney only, Kearns (Ireland).

12 On this question generally, see, for example, Karagiannakis, Magdalini, State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights, 11 Leiden J. Int’l L. 9 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Bianchi, Andrea, Overcoming the Hurdle of State Immunity in the Domestic Enforcement of International Human Rights, in Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts 405 (Conforti, Benedetto & Francioni, Franceso eds., 1997)Google Scholar, Brohmer, Jurgen, State Immunity and The Violation of Human Rights (1997)Google Scholar, and Trooboff, Peter D. , Foreign State Immunity: Emerging Consensus on Principles, 200 Receuil Des Cours 235 (1986 V)Google Scholar.

13 McElhinney judgment, supra note 2, para. 23 (citing Z v. United Kingdom, App. No. 29392/95, para. 87 (Eur.Ct. H.R. May 10, 2001)).

14 Id., para. 24.

15 The government was thus relying on the rationale developed by the ECHR in Pellegrin v. France, 1999-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 209 (1999).

16 On the doctrine generally, see, for example, Brems, Eva, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Bights, 56 Zeitschr1ft Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 240 (1996)Google Scholar; Howard, Charles Yourow, The Margin Of Appreciation Doctrine In The Dynamics Of European Human Rights Jurisprudence (1996); and The special issue on the margin of appreciation principle in 19 Human Rights L J. (1998)Google Scholar.

17 Al-Adsani judgment, supra note 6, para. 56.

18 McElhinney judgment, supra note 1, Diss. Op. Loucaides, J. 19 See, e.g., Garnett, Richard, State Immunity in Employment Matters, 46 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 81 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, Hazel, Employment Contracts as an Exception to State Immunity: Is All Public Service Immune? 66 Brit.Y.B. Int’l L. 97 (1995)Google Scholar.

20 European Convention on State Immunity, May 16, 1972, ETS No. 74, 11 ILM 470 (1972) (entered into force June 11, 1976).

21 The cases of Selmouni v. France, 1999-VEur. Ct. H.R. 149, and Aksoy v. Turkey, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2260, have widened the European Convention’s concept of torture.

22 See especially the judgment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v. Furundzija, No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment (Dec. 10, 1998), at <http://www.un.org/icty/ind-e.htm>.

23 The Court drew substantially on the material presented in the International Law Commission’s Working Group Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.576 (ILC Report A/54/10, 1999), at<http://www.un.org/law/ilc/guide/4_l.htm>.

24 Judge Zupancic issued a concurring opinion relying on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85. Judges Pellonpää and Bratza in a joint concurring opinion extrapolated on the practical consequences should the Court have reached a different conclusion.

25 See the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Rozakis, Caflisch, Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto, and Vajic. Judge Ferrari Bravo blamed the majority for not taking the “golden opportunity to issue a clear and forceful condemnation of all acts of torture,” while Judge Loucaides relied on his opinions in McElhinney and Fogarty.

26 On the question of extraterritorial applicability of Article 3, see Alleweldt, Ralf, Protection Against Expulsion Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4 Eur.J. Int’l L. 360 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the doctrine of implied positive obligations, see Pieter, van Dijk, “Positive Obligations” Implied in the European Convention on Human Rights: Are the States Still the “Masters” of the Convention’? in The Role of The Nation-State in the 21st Century: Human Rights, International Organisations, and Foreign Policy 17 (Castermans-Holleman, Monique C. Fried, van Hoof, & Smith, Jacqueline eds., 1998)Google Scholar.

27 On positive obligations under European Convention Article 3, see, for example, A v. United Kingdom, 1998-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2692, Aksoy v. Turkey, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2260, and Assenov v. Bulgaria, 1998-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 3264.

28 See Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989); Richard, B. Lillich, Case Report: The Soering Case, 85 AJIL 128 (1991)Google Scholar.

29 On state immunity and acts of torture in another legal context, see, for example, Garnett, Richard, The Defence of State Immunity for Acts of Torture, 18 Australian Y.B. Int’l. L. 97 (1997)Google Scholar.

30 See Waite v. Germany, 1999-1 Eur. Ct. H.R. 393 (immunity for the European Space Agency); Beer v. Germany, App. No. 28934/95 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 18, 1999) (same); see also Vearncombe v. United Kingdom, App. No. 12816/87, 59 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 186 (1989). Waite and Beer are discussed in a case report by August Reinisch at 93 AJIL 933 (1999).

31 See supra references cited note 30.

32 E.g., Prosecutor v. Furundzija, No. IT-95-17/l-T,Judgment (Dec. 10,1998), at <http://www.un.org/icty/inde.htm>

33 Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3), [1999] 2W.L.R. 827 (H.L.); see Christine, M. Chinkin, Case Report: Regina v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), 93 AJIL 7031 (1999)Google Scholar.

34 Cour de cassation, March 13, 2001, Judgment No. 1414, in 105 Revue Génerale de Droit International Public 473 (2001) (includes commentary, in French, by Florence Poirat). The case is also commented on (in English) in Salvatore, Zappalà, Do Heads of State in Office Enjoy Immunity from Jurisdiction for International Crimes f The Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation, 12 Eur.J. Int’l L. 595 (2001)Google Scholar.

35 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Congo v. Belg.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 14, 2002); see Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Case Report: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), 96 AJIL 677 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.