Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:32:52.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Court of Human Rights’ Judgment in the Case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Frank Schorkopf

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The European Court of Human Rights, on 30 June 2005, handed down its long awaited judgment in the case Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland. The case concerned the responsibility of contracting parties for legal measures induced by the European Community.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , 01 September 2005 , pp. 1255 - 1264
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98 (Eur. Ct. H. R. 30 June 2005), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=3666597&skin=hudoc-en&action=request.Google Scholar

2 Council Regulation 990/93, Concerning Trade Between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 1993 O.J. (L 102) 14 (EEC).Google Scholar

3 Council Regulation 1432/92, ProhibitingTrade Between the European Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro, 1992 O.J. (L 151) 4 (EEC); Council Regulation 2656/92, Concerning Certain Technical Modalities in Connection with the Application of Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 Prohibiting Trade Between the European Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro, 1992 O.J. (L 266) 27 (EEC).Google Scholar

4 See U.N. Charter art. 39-51.Google Scholar

5 S.C. Res. 713, U.N. Doc. S/RES/713 (Sept. 25, 1991); S.C. Res. 757, U.N. Doc. S/RES/757 (May 30, 1992); S.C. Res. 787, U.N. Doc. S/RES/787 (Nov. 16, 1992).Google Scholar

6 S.C. Res. 820, ¶ 24, U.N. Doc S/RES/820 (April 17, 1993) (“Decides that all States shall impound all vessels, freight vehicles, rolling stock and aircraft in their territories in which a majority or controlling interest is held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the [FRY] and that these vessels, freight vehicles, rolling stock or aircraft may be forfeited to the seizing State upon a determination that they have been in violation of resolutions […] 713 (1991), 757 (1992), 787 (1992) or the present resolution; …”).Google Scholar

7 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98 at paras. 35-36 (Eur. Ct. H. R. 30 June 2005), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=3666597&skin=hudocen&action=request.Google Scholar

8 Treaty Establishing the European Community, art. 234, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) [hereinafter EC Treaty].Google Scholar

9 Case C-84/95, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS, 1996 E.C.R. I-3953, paras. 11-18.Google Scholar

10 Id. at paras. 19-26.Google Scholar

11 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98 at para. 40 (Eur. Ct. H. R. 30 June 2005), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=3666597&skin=hudocen&action=request.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 6.Google Scholar

13 Id. at para. 7. See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 30, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 [hereinafter ECHR]; Rule 72 of the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights [hereinafter ECtHR Rules], available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/94F95200-874C-4E83-9E76-689344E8A3C8/0/RulesOfCourtMarch2005.pdf.Google Scholar

14 The NGO, Institut de Formation en Droits de L'Homme Du Barreau de Paris, was given leave to appear by the President of the Court. See ECHR art. 36 § 2; Rule 44 § 2 ECtHR Rules.Google Scholar

15 ECHR art. 1 (“The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.”).Google Scholar

16 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 1, March 20, 1952, 213 U.N.T.S. 262. Article 1 of Protocol 1 reads:Google Scholar

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.Google Scholar

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.Google Scholar

17 The ECJ characterizes the preliminary ruling procedure asGoogle Scholar

an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate […] In the context of that cooperation, it is for the national court seized of the dispute, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts giving rise to the dispute and must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling […]Google Scholar

Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, 2003 E.C.R. I-5659, paras. 30-31.Google Scholar

18 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98 at para. 135-137 (Eur. Ct. H. R. 30 June 2005), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=3666597&skin=hudocen&action=request.Google Scholar

19 Id. at para. 154, with reference to Matthews v. the United Kingdom, 1999-I Eur. Ct. H. R. paras. 29 and 32-34; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany, 2001-VIII Eur. Ct. H. R. para 47.Google Scholar

20 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98 at para. 147 (Eur. Ct. H. R. 30 June 2005), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=3666597&skin=hudocen&action=request.Google Scholar

21 Id. at paras. 150, 157.Google Scholar

22 Id. at para. 149.Google Scholar

23 Id. at paras. 145-150.Google Scholar

24 Id. at para. 156.Google Scholar

25 Id.Google Scholar

26 Id. at paras. 161-165.Google Scholar

27 Id. at para. 166.Google Scholar

28 Krüger, H. C. & Polaciewicz, J., Proposals For a Coherent Human Rights Protection System in Europe, 22 Human Rights Law Journal 1 (2001); S. Winkler, Der Beitritt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention 153 (2000); Report by the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Study of Technical and Legal Issues of a Possible EC/EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, DG II(2002)006 of 28 June 2002; Opinion by J. Schoo, J.-C. Piris and M. Petite of 23 July 2003, Working Group II of the European Convention, Working Document No. 13 of 5 September 2002; hearing of V Skouris of 17 September 2002, Arbeitsgruppe II des Europäischen Konvents, Working Document No. 19 of 27 September 2002Google Scholar

29 BVerfGE 73, 339 (378-381); BVerfGE 102, 147.Google Scholar

30 See Federal Constitutional Court Concedes Applicability of European Community Law in Banana Case, 1 German Law Journal No. 2 (01 November 2000), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=9.Google Scholar

31 BVerfG, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 54 (2001), 2705.Google Scholar

32 Id. at 2705, 2706.Google Scholar