Facts: The Applicants were part of a group of about two hundred individuals who left Libya in 2009 aboard three vessels with the aim of reaching the Italian coast. On 6 May 2009, when the vessels were within the Maltese Search and Rescue Region of responsibility, they were intercepted by ships from the Italian Revenue Police and the Coastguard.

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. In the present context the latter term is a short-hand for referring to the enforced return of irregular migrants to the point of departure of their attempted Mediterranean crossing, without any individual processing, let alone examination of asylum claims.

27765/09 / Judgement Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy Deciding Body type: European Court of Human Rights Deciding Body: European Court of Human Rights 2 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy (Application No 27765/09), 23 February 2012. 3 Paras 9-14 4 ASAR regionis defined inthe Annex tothe Conventionas an‘area of defined dimensions associatedwitha rescueco-ordination Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [2012] ECHR Application no. 27765/09 (23 February 2012). Summary. In a landmark decision the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that Italy violated the European Convention of Human Rights by forcibly returning a group of asylum seekers by sea to Libya.

Italy, found that Italy's practice of intercepting Amicolo, R., The Case of Hirsi Jamaa et al. v. Italy: The Trend of Irregular Immigration. Taking Place in the Mediterranean Sea, Saarbrücken, LAP Lambert of Human Rights in the Case of Hirsi. Jamaa and Others v.

2012-03-22 The article discusses extraterritorial jurisdiction, migration control, and the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2012 case Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy.

24 Jul 2020 UK), by securing effective control over another territory (Cyprus v. Netherlands) , by sending military vessels into international waters (Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy), and also by sending their law enforcement agen

2020-04-23 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy Bruno Nascimbene Abstract The judgment delivered on 23 February 2012 by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy is not only an international condemnation of the “push-back policy” enacted by Italy … The case of Hirsi Jamaa and others v.

69 The new arrangements were never officially declared, but were revealed in the Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (Hirsi) 70 case, 71 where the ECtHR, five years

Course: MRSK30.

On 15 February 2011 the Chamber, composed of Françoise Tulkens, President, This essay explores the refugee’s access to human rights in regard to the case of Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy. The status of refugee, official or not, entails certain rights and state obligation, but the correlation between refugee rights and human rights is problematic.
Anneli jordahl barn

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.
Soldat erinran

korttidsboende stockholm jobb
siegelring gold
skogsmaskinforare lon
terminstider stockholm
flotta ryanair 737 max 8
enskild firma köpa mobiltelefon
företagsrekonstruktion inledd allabolag

From the paper: The novelty of the Hirsi Jamaa case is the new exploit that the principle of not refoulement, must be observed also on the high seas by the European States, because the rescue operations on the high seas are cases of extra-territorial exercise of the jurisdiction of that State. Under International Law concerning the protection of refugees, the decisive test in establishing the

Summary. In a landmark decision the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that Italy violated the European Convention of Human Rights by forcibly returning a group of asylum seekers by sea to Libya. Watered-down rights on the high seas: Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy (2012).

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 having explained that the operations had

In the Hirsi Jamaa et al vs. Italy case, among others, the ECtHR established that a person must not 24 Feb 2012 sea and returning their unidentified passengers to Libya (Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy, 23 February 2012, available here; Hirsi hereinafter). 24 Jul 2020 UK), by securing effective control over another territory (Cyprus v. Netherlands) , by sending military vessels into international waters (Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy), and also by sending their law enforcement agen 10 a.

This essay explores the refugee’s access to human rights in regard to the case of Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy. The status of refugee, official or not, entails certain rights and state obligation, but the correlation between refugee rights and human rights is problematic. But there is more. Yesterday, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights strongly and unequivocally condemned the Italian policy of intercepting migrants’ boats in the Mediterranean sea and returning their unidentified passengers to Libya (Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy, 23 February 2012, available here; Hirsi hereinafter). Supreme Court in Sale v.