Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T15:56:56.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yollari Turizm v. Ticaret Anonim Sirket v. Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Frank Hoffmeister
Frank Hoffmeister*
Affiliation:
European Commission Legal Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 442 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 App. No. 45036/98 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 30, 2005) [hereinafter Judgment]. The judgments and other materials of the European Court of Human Rights are available online at the Court’s Web site, <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

2 Protocol [No. 1] to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Mar. 20, 1952, ETS 9, 213 UNTS 262.

3 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222.

4 S.C. Res. 820, para. 24 (Apr. 17, 1993).

5 Council Regulation 990/93 of 26 April 1993 Concerning Trade Between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 1993 O.J. (L 102) 14.

6 Italy, the United Kingdom, the Institut de formation en droits de l’homme du Barreau de Paris (a French nongovernmental organization), and the European Commission made written submissions. The commission also obtained leave to participate in the oral hearing as the representative of the EC.

7 M & Co. v. Germany, App. No. 13258/87, 64 Eur. Comm. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 138 (1990).

8 Article 1 of Protocol [No. 1] to the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provision shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

9 Consolidated Version Of The Treaty On European Union, Dec. 24, 2002, 2002 O.J. (C 325) 5. Article 6(2) provides: “The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.”

10 Dec. 7, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1.

11 Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucharova, Zagrebelsky, and Garlicki issued a joint concurring opinion, and Judge Ress annexed his own concurring opinion.

12 Case 29/69, Stauder v. City of Ulm, 1969 ECR 419.

13 CaseC-260/89, Elliniki RadiophoniaTiléorassiAE [ERT] v. Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis [DEP], 1991 ECR 1-2925, para. 41 (includes further case citations).

14 Regarding the protection of commercial locations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, compare, for example, the Hoechst (Cases 46/87 & 227/88, 1989 ECR 2859) and Roquette Frères (Case C-94/00, 2002 ECR 1-9011) cases before the ECJ, and the Niemetz case (251-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1992)) before the ECHR. Another well-known divergence emerged on the right not to incriminate oneself under Article 6 of the Convention; compare the ECJ’s Orkem case (Case 374/87, 1989 ECR 3283) and the ECHR’s Funke case (256-AEur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) (1993)). The ECJ was also less strict than the ECHR vis-à-vis television monopolies under Article 10 of the Convention; see the ECJ’s ERT v. DEP case and the ECHR’s Informationsverein Lentia case (276 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) (1993)).

15 See, e.g., Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission, Case C-185/95, 1998 ECRI-8417, paras. 20, 27 (concerning Convention Article 6); Joined Cases C-74/95 & C-l29/95, 1996 ECR 1-6609, para. 25 (concerning Convention Article 7); Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd., Case C-249/96, 1998 ECRI-621, paras. 33-34 (concerning Convention Articles 8, 12, & 14); Connolly v. Commission, Case C-274/99, 2001 ECR 1-1611, para. 39 (concerning Convention Article 10).

16 Opinion 2/94, Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1996 ECR 1-1759; see Kokott, Juliane & Hoffmeister, Frank, Case Report: Opinion 2/94, 90 AJIL 664 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Confédération francaise démocratique du travail v. European Communities, App. No. 8030/77, 13 Eur. Coram. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 231 (1978); Dufayv. European Communities, App. No. 13539/88 (Eur. Comm’n H.R. Jan. 19, 1989) (unpublished admissibility decision); Matthews v. United Kingdom, 1999-1 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 32.

18 M & Co. v. Germany, App. No. 13258/87, 64 Eur. Comm. H.R. Dec. & Rep. 138 (1990).

19 Cantoni v. France, 1996-VEur. Ct. H.R.; Hornsby v. Greece, 1997-11 Eur. Ct. H.R.

20 Matthews v. United Kingdom, paras. 33-34.

21 Treaty Establishing the European Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1, as amended by Treaty of Nice, Feb. 26, 2001, 2001 O.J. (C 80) 1, consolidated version reprinted in 2002 O.J. (C 325) 33 [hereinafter EC Treaty], Art. 299.

22 See Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), available at <www.un.org/law/ilc>.

23 For this approach compare Kuijper, P. J. & Passivirta, E.., Further exploring international responsibility: The European Community and the ILC’s Project on Responsibility of International Organizations, 1 Int’l Org. L. Rev. 111 , 113–16 (2004)Google Scholar.

24 Panel Report, European Communities—Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, para. 8.16, WTO Docs. WT/DS62/R, WT/DS67/R, & WT/DS68/R (Feb. 5, 1998); Panel Report, European Communities— Protection of Trademarks and Geographic Indication for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, para. 7.725, WTO Doc. WT/DS174/R (Mar. 15, 2005) (“The Panel . . . has accepted the European Communities’ explanation of what amount to its sui generis domestic constitutional arrangements that Community laws are generally not executed through authorities at Community level but rather through recourse to the authorities of its member States which, in such a situation, ‘act de facto as organs of the Community, for which the Community would be responsible under WTO law and international law in general’.”).

25 See Articles 15 and 16 of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on responsibility of international organizations, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.666/rev.1 (2005), adopted by the Drafting Committee on May 27, 2005.

26 According to Article XI: 1 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: the Results of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 3 (1999), the European Communities is a member of the WTO.

27 Article 292 of the EC Treaty, supra note 21, provides: “Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.”

28 See the German Constitutional Court’s June 7, 2000, judgment in the “bananas” case, 102 BVerfGE 147 (2000), along with the case note by the author at 38 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 791 (2001). For a comparison between the present case and the German case, see Schorkopf, Frank, The European Court of Human Rights ‘Judgment in the Case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, 6 German L.J. 1255, 1264 (2005)Google Scholar.

29 Apparently, the Court was split on the details of this test. The seven judges who wrote concurring opinions presented a series of far-reaching examples of “manifestly deficient” protection of Convention rights, thereby setting a relatively low threshold. For a discussion see Florence, Benoit-Rohmer, A propos de l’arrêt Bosphorus Air Lines du 30 juin 2005: L’adhésion contrainte de l’ Union à la Convention, 16 Revue Trimestrielle Des Droits De L’homme 827, 850–51 (2005)Google Scholar.

30 Segi v. 15 States of the European Union, 2002-V Eur. Ct. H.R. In that case the Court declared an application against 15 European Union member states inadmissible because Article 4 of Common Position No. 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the Application of Specific Measures to Combat Terrorism, 2001 O.J. (L 344) 93, did no more than ask for increased cooperation of member states’ police and judicial authorities against designated terrorist organizations—without adding new powers that could be exercised against the applicants.

31 Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council (Eur. Ct. First Instance September 21, 2005). The judgment is currently pending on appeal before the European Court of Justice.

32 Senator Lines GmbH v. 15 Member States of the European Union, 2004-IV Eur. Ct. H.R.

33 Case T-191-98, Senator Lines GmbH v. Commission, 2003 ECR 11-3275.

34 Jean-Paul, Jacqué, Droit communautaire et Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, L ‘Arrêt Bosphorus, une jurisprudence “Solange II’de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme? 41 Revue Trimestrielle De Droit Européen 756, 757–58 (2005)Google Scholar.