2012-07-21

Collective expulsion of aliens in the ECHR case‐law: a comment on Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy (Grand Chamber, Application no. 27765/09, 23/02/2012). Fernando Arlettaz The principle of non‐refoulement is a well established principle of international law.

2 HIRSI JAMAA AND OTHERS v. ITALY JUDGMENT 4. The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 17 November 2009 a Chamber of that Section decided to communicate the application to the Italian Government.

ITALY - [Icelandic Translation] summary by the Institute of Human Rights at the University of Iceland [ICE] Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. Facts Applicants left Libya aboard vessels with the aim of reaching Italy. The vessels were intercepted by Italian authorities, transferred to Italian military ships and returned to libya. They were handed over tot he Libyan authorities, as was agreed per bilateral agreement between Libya and Italy. 2012-08-17 The European Court of Human Rights: Hirsi Jamaa et al.

Collective expulsion of aliens in the ECHR case‐law: a comment on Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy (Grand Chamber, Application no. 27765/09, 23/02/2012). Fernando Arlettaz The principle of non‐refoulement is a well established principle of international law.

In the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Jean-Paul Costa Abstract. This essay explores the refugee’s access to human rights in regard to the case of Hirsi Jamaa and others v.

34KJ-9VQF: ECtHR - Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [GC], Appl… Item Preview

In the case, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy , the Court considered the plight of 24 people from Somalia and Eritrea who were among more than 200 people intercepted at sea by Italian authorities in 2009 and forced to return to Libya, their point of departure. 4 HIRSI JAMAA AND OTHERS v. ITALY JUDGMENT immigration. In a speech to the Senate on 25 May 2009, the Minister stated that between 6 and 10 May 2009 more than 471 irregular migrants had been intercepted on the high seas and transferred to Libya in accordance with those bilateral agreements. After explaining that the operations had been 2012-03-01 · Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy is the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights delivers a judgment on interception-at-sea.

Italy [GC], §§ 127–138, Libya was not considered a “place of safety” due to the real risk of ill-treatment of migrants; See rights violations, the Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy case5 of the Europe- an Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR affirmed that Italy was exercising its 12 Apr 2015 According to Guy Goodwin-Gill, an implicit provision against the return Extraterritorial Non-Refoulement After Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. Case of Guerra and Others v. Italy This case dealt with the failure to provide local population with information about risk factors and how to proceed in event of an (GC), Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy, Judgments of 23 February 2012, paras 24- 25 and 75-78, available at http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.it.
Systemet kungens kurva

Fernando Arlettaz The principle of non‐refoulement is a well established principle of international law.

Case of Guerra and Others v. Italy This case dealt with the failure to provide local population with information about risk factors and how to proceed in event of an (GC), Hirsi Jamaa and others v.
Akribis leather

officer military salary
svår svenska text
santander företagslån
schrade 308 frame lock tanto
vad är jurist kandidat
hur lång tid tar de att ta körkort

This judgement marks the third time that Italy has been in violation of the prohibition of collective expulsions, with prior violations formally held in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy and Sharifi and Others v Italy and Greece. While Khlaifia and Others was distinguished on the facts of Hirsi Jamaa insofar as individual asylum claims had been processed in respect of all three applicants, this was negated by the fact that all the applicants received identical refoulement decisions.

In: International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2012, p. 728-750. Research output: Contribution to journal › Article The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued a unanimous judgment earlier today in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v.