Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Grand Chamber), September 12, 2012 (case CASE OF NADA v. SWITZERLAND)

Linked as:

Summary


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae)

Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Victim)

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae)

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies)

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies)

Remainder inadmissible

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life

Respect for private life)

Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

Article 8-1 - Respect for family life

Respect for private life)

See the full content of this document

Extract


Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Grand Chamber), September 12, 2012 (case CASE OF NADA v. SWITZERLAND)

GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF NADA v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 10593/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 September 2012

This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.

NADA v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT 1

In the case of Nada v. Switzerland,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,

Jean-Paul Costa,

Françoise Tulkens,

Josep Casadevall,

Nina VajiDean Spielmann,

Christos Rozakis,

Corneliu Bîrsan,

Karel Jungwiert,

Khanlar Hajiyev,

Ján Šikuta,

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,

Giorgio Malinverni,

George Nicolaou,

Mihai Poalelungi,

Kristina Pardalos,

Ganna Yudkivska, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2011, 7 September 2011 and on 23 May 2012,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the lastmentioned date:

PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 10593/08) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian and Egyptian national, Mr Youssef Moustafa Nada (“the applicant”), on 19 February 2008.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr J. McBride, a barrister in London. The Swiss Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Schürmann, of the Federal Office of Justice.

3. In his application, Mr Nada alleged that the ban on entering or transiting through Switzerland, which had been imposed on him as a result of the addition of his name to the list annexed to the Federal Taliban Ordinance, had breached his right to liberty (Article 5 of the Convention) and his right to respect for private and family life, honour and reputation (Article 8). He submitted that this ban was thus also tantamount to ill2 NADA v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT treatment within the meaning of Article 3. He further complained of a breach of his freedom to manifest his religion or beliefs (Article 9), arguing that his inability to leave the enclave of Campione d’Italia had prevented him from worshipping at a mosque. Lastly, he complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of those complaints (Article 13).

4. The application was assigned to the Court’s First Section (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court), which decided to deal with it on a priority basis under Article 41 of the Rules of Court. On 12 March 2009 a Chamber of that Section decided to give notice to the Government of the complaints under Articles 5, 8 and 13.

5. The parties each submitted written comments on the other’s observations. Observations were also received from the French and United Kingdom Governments, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 as then in force). The Italian Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).

6. On 20 January 2010 the parties were informed that the Chamber intended to examine the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (former Article 29 § 3 of the Convention together with former Rule 54A).

7. On 30 September 2010 the Chamber, composed of Christos Rozakis,

Nina VajiMalinverni, and George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment after being consulted for that purpose (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72).

8. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24. JeanPaul Costa, Christos Rozakis, Giorgio Malinverni and Mihai Poalelungi continued to deal with the case after their term of office expired, until the final deliberations, in accordance with Article 23 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4.

9. The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the merits of the case. The French and United Kingdom Governments submitted the same observations as before the Chamber. In addition, the President of the Grand Chamber authorised JUSTICE, a non-governmental organisation based in London, to submit written comments (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Rule 44 § 2). Lastly, the President of the Grand Chamber authorised the United Kingdom Government to take part in the hearing.

10. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building,

Strasbourg, on 23 March 2011 (Rule 59 § 3).

NADA v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT 3

There appeared before the Court:

– for the Government Mr F. SCHÜRMANN, Head of European law and international human rights section, Federal Office of Justice,

Federal Police and Justice Department, Agent,

Mr J. LINDENMANN, Ambassador, Deputy Director of Public International Law Directorate, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs,

Mr R. E. VOCK, Head of Sanctions Division, State Secretariat for Ec...

See the full content of this document


ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2014, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex European Union

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company