- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 9,703
- 0
- 6
The European Court of Human Rights refused Tuesday to hear an unlawful detention claim against Italy, finding that the applicant has not exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The applicant argued that Italy violated his right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ruling in favor of Italy, the court agreed that the applicant did not fulfil the conditions for exhaustion clarified in its previous case law on arbitrary detention, namely that he should have brought the very same claim he was making before a domestic authority, the appeal to the return order was therefore not sufficient in its view. Moreover, it ruled that the list of remedies provided by the government was effective since they either offered either a prospect of release when the alleged deprivation of liberty was ongoing or compensation in hindsight to the conduct.
However, the court agreed that had the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, it would have heard the case because the ship was flying the Italian flag, it was subject to Italian jurisdiction under maritime law. The court also agreed that the captain was acting not merely in a private capacity and therefore his conduct, putting the order of return into effect, would be attributable to the state.
The applicant is a Tunisian national who previously lived in Italy in 2016 under a temporary work permit, which later expired, and led him to attempt to re-enter Italy aboard the Italian cruise ship Splendid. Police denied his entry, as he did not possess an entry visa, and resorted to the custom of returning him on the basis of an Italian legislative Decree. In turn, the captain would be responsible for not letting the applicant escape and supervising his return, thereby exercising the return order. Mansouri, the applicant, claimed that he was subsequently confined for seven consecutive days in a cabin designed to keep persons like him from absconding, with his door locked from the outside and no exit request granted. On this ground, Mansouri claimed a violation by Italy of Article 5 of the convention, specifically paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 which protect individuals from arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The government as well as the shipowners, contested his account of the facts, stating that he was allowed and did in effect exit the cabin multiple times.
In a similar set of facts, however taking place on the high seas, the court had ruled in 2015 a violation of Article 5 (1) and (2) based on the fact that the applicants, three Tunisian nationals, were arbitrarily detained on a ship without a basis in domestic law at the time.
The post Europe rights court declines to hear Tunisia migrant arbitrary detention claim against Italy appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
Ruling in favor of Italy, the court agreed that the applicant did not fulfil the conditions for exhaustion clarified in its previous case law on arbitrary detention, namely that he should have brought the very same claim he was making before a domestic authority, the appeal to the return order was therefore not sufficient in its view. Moreover, it ruled that the list of remedies provided by the government was effective since they either offered either a prospect of release when the alleged deprivation of liberty was ongoing or compensation in hindsight to the conduct.
However, the court agreed that had the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, it would have heard the case because the ship was flying the Italian flag, it was subject to Italian jurisdiction under maritime law. The court also agreed that the captain was acting not merely in a private capacity and therefore his conduct, putting the order of return into effect, would be attributable to the state.
The applicant is a Tunisian national who previously lived in Italy in 2016 under a temporary work permit, which later expired, and led him to attempt to re-enter Italy aboard the Italian cruise ship Splendid. Police denied his entry, as he did not possess an entry visa, and resorted to the custom of returning him on the basis of an Italian legislative Decree. In turn, the captain would be responsible for not letting the applicant escape and supervising his return, thereby exercising the return order. Mansouri, the applicant, claimed that he was subsequently confined for seven consecutive days in a cabin designed to keep persons like him from absconding, with his door locked from the outside and no exit request granted. On this ground, Mansouri claimed a violation by Italy of Article 5 of the convention, specifically paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 which protect individuals from arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The government as well as the shipowners, contested his account of the facts, stating that he was allowed and did in effect exit the cabin multiple times.
In a similar set of facts, however taking place on the high seas, the court had ruled in 2015 a violation of Article 5 (1) and (2) based on the fact that the applicants, three Tunisian nationals, were arbitrarily detained on a ship without a basis in domestic law at the time.
The post Europe rights court declines to hear Tunisia migrant arbitrary detention claim against Italy appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.