Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=21.11.2001&Aktenzeichen=35763/97
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 01:50:34
Document Index: 81992678

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 30', 'art. 3', 'art. 6', '§ 55', '§ 43', '§ 55', '§ 43', '§ 55', '§ 55', '§ 169', '§ 55', '§ 76', '§ 55', '§ 43', '§ 61', '§ 61', '§ 60', '§ 243', '§ 38', '§ 35', '§ 55']

EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2001,17675
EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,17675)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.11.2001 - 35763/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,17675)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. November 2001 - 35763/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,17675)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,17675) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)
EGMR, 01.03.2000 - 35763/97
It should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of public international law of which it forms part (see, mutatis mutandis , Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; and Loizidou v. Turkey , judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2231, § 43).
Nach geltendem Völkerrecht kann ein Staat Befreiung von der Gerichtsbarkeit eines anderen Staates beanspruchen, wenn und soweit es um die Beurteilung seines hoheitlichen Verhaltens - so genannter acta iure imperii - geht (vgl. BVerfGE 16, 27 ; dazu auch EGMR, Nr. 35763/97, Urteil vom 21. November 2001, EuGRZ 2002, S. 403 Ziff. 66 - Al-Adsani).
It should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of public international law of which it forms part (see, mutatis mutandis, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI, and Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2231, § 43).
The Convention should be interpreted as far as possible in harmony with other principles of international law of which it forms part (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; Bankovic, cited above, §§ 55-57).
Third, the majority's position contradicts a principle well established in the Court's case-law, namely that the Convention shall not be interpreted in splendid isolation, but is to be interpreted taking into account the relevant international law (see Nada, cited above, § 169; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; and Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, §§ 76 and 105, ECHR 2011).
It should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of public international law of which it forms part (see, mutatis mutandis, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; and Loizidou v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2231, § 43).
Referring to the judgment delivered by the Court in the case of Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI), it further considered that there had been no violation of the applicant's right of access to a court.
According to the Court's case-law, the prohibition of torture has achieved the status of a peremptory norm in international law (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 61, ECHR 2001-XI).
The present case must be distinguished from Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, [GC] no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, where the torture was allegedly carried out by the Kuwaiti authorities and the Court in that case decided that "[i]n these circumstances the application of the provisions of the [State Immunity] 1978 Act to uphold Kuwait's claim to immunity cannot be said to have amounted to an unjustified restriction on the applicant's access to a court".[68] By contrast, in the present case the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to examine the issue of immunity from jurisdiction, in that it was dismissing the appeal on the grounds that there did not exist a sufficient connection between the facts of the case and Switzerland.
Vgl. auch EGMR, 21. November 2001, Al-Adsani/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2001:1121JUD003576397, §§ 61 und 115 ff).
Nor is there any doubt that the antinomy must be resolved by giving priority to the highest ranking norms, as the judges in the minority (eight to nine) stated in their dissenting opinion appended to the judgment in Al-Adsani [v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI], by precluding in such cases any claim by the State to immunity from suit in the foreign courts.".
However, in cases concerning the conferring of immunities on States (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI) and on international organisations (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/99, ECHR 1999-I), the Court interpreted such immunities as procedural bars which required justification rather than as limitations on a substantive right under domestic law.
Se référant à l'arrêt rendu par la Cour dans l'affaire Al-Adsani c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], no 35763/97, CEDH 2001-XI), elle estima en outre que le requérant ne subissait aucune violation de son droit d'accès à un tribunal.
Cela a déjà été reconnu dans la jurisprudence de la Cour (Al-Adsani c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 35763/97, § 60, CEDH 2001-XI).
When examining the merits of the complaint under Article 2, the Court noted that the death had taken place in Cyprus and that, as a rule, the obligation to ensure an effective investigation applied to Cyprus alone (ibid., § 243, referring mutatis mutandis to Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 38, ECHR 2001-XI, in relation to Article 3).
See, inter alia, Golder, cited above, § 35, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 55-56, 21 November 2001, where the Court referred to this provision.
EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 51233/99
JANCOVA v. SLOVAKIA