Beyond Bosphorus: The European Court of Human Rights' case law on the responsibility of member states of international organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 529-545

  Lock, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955947158     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngq022     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şiketi v Ireland 2005-VI; 42 EHRR 1 (Bosphorus)
2. Costello,'The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe', (2006) 6 Human Rights Law Review 87 at 88
3. It was suggested that the presumption should apply in such a case as well, see Winkler, 'Die Vermutung "äquivalenten" Grundrechtsschutzes im Gemeinschaftsrecht nach dem Bosphorus-Urteil des EGMR', [2007] Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift 641 at 653-4
4. Peers, 'Bosphorus European Court of Human Rights', (2006) 2 European Constitutional Law Review 443 at 452
5. Behrami and Behrami v France; Saramati v France, Germany and Norway 45 EHRR SE10
6. UNSC Res. 1244, 10 June 1999, S/RES/1244.
7. This finding was heavily criticised by commentators, mainly because the question of whether an act or omission is attributable to the UN does not determine whether it is (also) attributable to the member state
8. cf. Sari, 'Jurisdiction and International Responsibility in Peace Support Operations: The Behrami and Saramati Cases', (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 151 at 159.
9. And 'Case Comment on Behrami and Saramati' (2007) European Human Rights Law Review 698 at 702
10. General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, S/1995/999; Annex 10 of the Agreement sets out the mandate of the High Representative
11. UNSC Res. 1031, 15 December 1995, S/RES/1031 (1995)
12. Application No. 73250/01, Admissibility Decision of 9 September 2008.
13. Application No. 73274/01, Admissibility Decision of 9 December 2008; confirmed in Beygo v 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, Application No 36099/06, Admissibility Decision of 16 June 2009; and Rambus Inc. v Germany, Application No 40382/04, Admissibility Decision of 16 June 2009.
14. 48 EHRR SE18
15. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, [1992] OJ L 206/7
16. ECJ, Case C-127/02 Waddenvereniging andVogelsbeschermingvereniging [2004] ECR I-7405
17. It is noteworthy that the Court's decision neither refers to Connolly nor to Biret
18. Application No. 13762/04, Admissibility Decision of 9 December 2008.
19. ECJ, Case C-93/02 P Biret International v Council [2003] ECR I-10497
20. Application No. 10750/03, Admissibility Decision of 12 May 2009.
21. '[U]ne lacune structurelle du me{currency sign}canisme interne concerné'
22. Rightly pointed out that even the distinction between Bosphorus and Matthews is not that easy
23. 33 EHRR 54
24. 1999-I; 30 EHRR 261
25. This distinction was expressly confirmed in Lopez Cifuentes v Spain, Application No.18754/06, Admissibility Decision of 7 July 2009, at para. 31.
26. On this question cf. ECJ, Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar [2000] ECR I-665.
27. Emesa Sugar v The Netherlands, Application No.62023/00, Admissibility Decision of 13 January 2005; and Vermeulen v Belgium1996-I; 32 EHRR 313.
28. 'Pour la Cour, il lui faut en réalité déterminer si, au moment ou' ils ont adhéré a' l'OTAN et lui ont transféré certains pouvoirs souverains, les Etats défendeurs ont pu, de bonne foi, estimer que le mécanisme de re'glement des conflits du travail interne a' l'OTAN n'était pas en contradiction flagrante avec les dispositions de la Convention.'
29. Application No. 16931/04, Admissibility Decision of 10 October 2006.
30. ECJ, Case C-84/95 Bosphorus HavaYollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and Others [1996] ECR I-3953, at paras 25-6
31. 326A (1995); 22 EHRR 193
32. Wildhaber, 'The Coordination of the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe', Geneva 8 September 2005
33. On this question cf. the very instructive article by Wilde, 'Enhancing Accountability at the International Level: The Tension Between International Organization and Member State Responsibility and the Underlying Issues at Stake', (2006) 12 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 1 at 7-10.
34. EU membership of the ECHR has become possible with the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 on 1 June 2010.
35. On the future of the Bosphorus presumption, see Lock, 'The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts', (2009) 8 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 375 at 395-6