CASE OF NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND
Hearing: Naït-Liman v. Switzerland (no. 51357/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-06-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 51357/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2018-03-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0315JUD005135707
Respondent state: CHE
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Pauliine Koskelo;Pieter Van Dijk;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: TRIAL INTERNATIONAL
Issue: Article 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations ; Section 3 of the Federal Act on Private International Law of 18 December 1987 (LDIP) (Forum of necessity)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inv. v. Switzerland [GC], no 5809/08, ECHR 2016;Anheuser-Busch Inv. v. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2007‑I;Arlewin v. Sweden, no 22302/10, § 142, 1 March 2016;Baka v. Hungary [GC], no 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016;Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no 23459/03, § 122, ECHR 2011;Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 47273/99, § 49, ECHR 2002 IX;Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, § 32, Series A no 97;Eşim v. Turkey, no 59601/09, § 18, 17 September 2013;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no 18;Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no 37359/09, §§ 72-75, ECHR 2014;Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, §§ 40-45, Reports 1997 II;Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland, nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, §§ 70-71, 11 March 2014;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998‑II;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no 176‑A;Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 71, ECHR 2016 (extracts)Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no 18030/11, § 138, ECHR 2016;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, § 169, ECHR 2012;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 131, ECHR 2010;Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 43750/06, 43752/06, 32054/08, 37753/08 and 60915/08, § 38, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 81, Series A no 52;Stagno v. Belgium, no 1062/07, § 25, 7 July 2009;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012;Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 50, Reports 1996 IV;Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no 43903/09, § 58, 12 November 2013
External sources: Resolution 60/147 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 16 December 2005;Articles 31 § 3 (c) and 32 of the  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969;Articles 5 § 2 and 14 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 (States Parties’ jurisdiction in criminal matters and universal civil jurisdiction);General Comment no. 3 (2012) of the United Nations Committee against Torture on the Implementation of Article 14 by States parties (CAT/C.GC/3, 13 December 2012;Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ);Article 16 of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Access to courts);Institute of International Law, Tallinn Session Resolution 2015 entitled “Universal Civil Jurisdiction with regard to Reparation for International Crimes” and its background report
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Separate opinion: TRUE