Le refoulement de migrants en Libye sans examen les a
exposes a un risque de mauvais traitements et a constitue une
expulsion collectiveDans son arret de grande chambre, definitif1, rendu ce jour dans lfaffaire Hirsi Jamaa et
autres c. Italie (requete no 27765/09), la Cour europeenne des droits de lfhomme conclut, a
lfunanimite:
Que les requerants relevaient de la juridiction de lfItalie au sens de lfarticle 1 de la
Convention europeenne des droits de lfhomme.
A deux violations de lfarticle 3 (interdiction des traitements inhumains ou degradants) de
la Convention, les requerants ayant ete exposes au risque de subir de mauvais traitements
en Lybie et dfetre rapatries en Somalie ou en Erythree.
A la violation de lfarticle 4 du Protocole no4 (interdiction des expulsions collectives
dfetrangers).
A la violation de lfarticle 13 (droit a un recours effectif) combine avec lfarticle 3 et de
lfarticle 13 combine avec lfarticle 4 du Protocole no4.
Lfaffaire concernait un groupe de migrants (somaliens et erythreens) en provenance de Libye,
arretes en mer puis reconduits en Libye par les autorites italiennes.
Principaux faits
Les requerants sont onze ressortissants somaliens et treize ressortissants erythreens. Ils font
partie dfun groupe dfenviron 200 personnes qui, en 2009, quitterent la Libye a bord de trois
embarcations dans le but de rejoindre les cotes italiennes. Le 6 mai 2009, alors que les
embarcations se trouvaient a 35 miles au sud de Lampedusa (Agrigente), a savoir a
lfinterieur de la zone maritime de recherche et de sauvetage relevant de la competence de
Malte, elles furent approchees par des navires de la Garde Fiscale et des Garde-cotes
italiennes. Les occupants des embarcations interceptees furent transferes sur les navires
militaires italiens et reconduits a Tripoli. Les requerants affirment que pendant le voyage les
autorites italiennes ne les informerent pas de leur destination et nfeffectuerent aucune
procedure dfidentification. Une fois arrives dans le port de Tripoli, apres dix heures de
navigation, les migrants furent delivres aux autorites libyennes. Lors dfune conference de
presse tenue le 7 mai 2009, le ministre de lfInterieur italien affirma que les operations
dfinterception des embarcations en haute mer et de renvoi des migrants en Libye faisaient
suite a lfentree en vigueur, le 4 fevrier 2009, dfaccords bilateraux conclus avec la Libye et
constituaient un tournant important dans la lutte contre lfimmigration clandestine.
Le 25 mai 2009, lors dfune intervention devant le Senat, le ministre indiqua que, du 6 au 10
mai 2009, plus de 471 migrants clandestins avaient ete interceptes en haute mer et
transferes vers la Libye conformement auxdits accords bilateraux. Selon lui la politique de
renvoi decourageait les organisations criminelles liees au trafic illicite et a la traite des
personnes, contribuait a sauver des vies en mer et reduisait sensiblement les debarquements
de clandestins sur les cotes italiennes. Au cours de lfannee 2009, neuf interceptions de
clandestins en haute mer furent pratiquees par lfItalie conformement aux accords bilateraux
1 Les arrets de Grande Chambre sont definitifs (article 44 de la Convention).
Tous les arrets definitifs sont transmis au Comite des Ministres du Conseil de lfEurope qui en surveille
lfexecution. Pour plus dfinformations sur la procedure dfexecution, consulter le site internet :
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
avec la Libye. Le 26 fevrier 2011, le ministre italien de la Defense a declare que lfapplication
des accords entre lfItalie et la Lybie etait suspendue suite aux evenements en Lybie.
Selon les informations transmises a la Cour par les representants des requerants, deux
dfentre eux sont decedes dans des circonstances inconnues. Entre juin et octobre 2009,
quatorze des requerants ont obtenu le statut de refugie aupres du bureau du Haut
Commissariat pour les Refugies (HCR) de Tripoli. Suite a la revolte libyenne de fevrier 2011,
la qualite des contacts entre les requerants et leurs representants sfest degradee. Les
avocats sont actuellement en contact avec six des requerants, dont quatre resident au Benin,
a Malte ou en Suisse . dans lfattente pour certains dfune reponse a leur demande de
protection internationale. Lfun des requerants se trouve dans un camp de refugies en Tunisie
et envisage de rejoindre lfItalie. En juin 2011, le statut de refugie a ete octroye a lfun des
requerants en Italie, qufil avait rejoint clandestinement.
Griefs, procedure et composition de la Cour
Invoquant lfarticle 3, les requerants soutenaient que la decision des autorites italiennes de les
renvoyer vers la Libye les avait, dfune part exposes au risque dfy etre soumis a de mauvais
traitements, dfautre part au risque dfetre soumis a de mauvais traitements en cas de
rapatriement vers leurs pays dforigine (la Somalie et lfErythree). Ils se plaignaient par ailleurs
dfavoir fait lfobjet dfune expulsion collective prohibee par lfarticle 4 du Protocole no 4.
Invoquant enfin lfarticle 13, ils se plaignaient de nfavoir eu aucune voie de recours effective a
leur disposition en Italie pour se plaindre des atteintes alleguees a lfarticle 3 et a lfarticle 4 du
Protocole no 4.
La requete a ete introduite devant la Cour europeenne des droits de lfhomme le 26 mai 2009.
Le 15 fevrier 2011 la chambre a laquelle lfaffaire avait ete confiee sfest dessaisie au profit de
la Grande Chambre. Une audience sfest tenue au Palais des droits de lfhomme a Strasbourg
le 22 juin 2011.
Ont ete autorises a intervenir en qualite de tiers intervenants dans la procedure (article 36 ˜
2 de la Convention) : le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les refugies, le Haut
Commissariat des Nations Unies aux Droits de lfHomme, les organisations nongouvernementales
Aire Center, Amnesty International et Federation Internationale des ligues
des doits de lfhomme (FIDH), lforganisation non-gouvernementale Human Rights Watch et la
Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic.
Lfarret a ete rendu par la Grande Chambre de 17 juges, composee en lfoccurrence de :
Nicolas Bratza (Royaume-Uni), president,
Jean-Paul Costa (France),
Francoise Tulkens (Belgique),
Josep Casadevall (Andorre),
Nina Vaji. (Croatie),
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),
Peer Lorenzen (Danemark),
Ljiljana Mijovi. (Bosnie-Herzegovine),
Dragoljub Popovi. (Serbie),
Giorgio Malinverni (Suisse),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (á Ex-Republique Yougoslave de Macedoine â),
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgie),
I..l Karaka. (Turquie),
Kristina Pardalos (Saint-Marin),
Guido Raimondi (Italie),
Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malte),
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal), juges,
ainsi que de Michael OfBoyle, greffier adjoint.
3
Decision de la Cour
Sur la question de la juridiction au titre de lfarticle 1
Cfest seulement dans des circonstances exceptionnelles que la Cour admet que des actes
dfEtats membres commis ou ayant des effets au dela de leur territoire relevent de leur
juridiction. Des lfinstant ou un Etat, par le biais de ses agents operant hors de son territoire,
exerce son controle et son autorite sur un individu, et ainsi sa juridiction, cet Etat doit lui
reconnaitre les droits decoulant de la Convention europeenne des droits de lfhomme.
LfItalie ne conteste pas que les navires sur lesquels ont ete embarques les requerants
relevaient pleinement de sa juridiction. La Cour rappelle le principe de droit international,
transcrit dans le code italien de la navigation, selon lequel un navire en haute mer est soumis
a la juridiction exclusive definie par son pavillon. La Cour ne peut retenir la qualification de
á sauvetage en haute mer â avancee par le Gouvernement pour decrire les faits, ni le
pretendu niveau reduit du controle exerce sur les requerants. Les faits se sont entierement
deroules a bord de navires des forces armees italiennes, dont lfequipage etait compose
exclusivement de militaires nationaux. De leur montee a bord jusqufa leur remise aux
autorites libyennes, les requerants se sont trouves sous le controle continu et exclusif, en
droit et en fait, des autorites italiennes. Par consequent, les faits dont decoulent les violations
alleguees relevaient de la juridiction de lfItalie au sens de lfarticle 1.
Article 3
Risque de subir de mauvais traitements en Libye
La Cour, consciente de la pression sur les Etats que represente le flot croissant de migrants,
particulierement complexe en milieu maritime, rappelle neanmoins que cette situation ne les
exonere pas de leur obligation de ne pas eloigner une personne risquant de subir des
traitements prohibes par lfarticle 3 dans le pays de destination. Notant la degradation de la
situation en Lybie a compter dfavril 2010, la Cour, pour lfexamen de lfaffaire, se refere
cependant a la seule situation a lfepoque des faits. A cet egard, elle note que les conclusions
preoccupantes de nombreuses organisations2 quant au traitement des immigres clandestins
sont corroborees par le rapport du Comite pour la prevention de la torture (CPT) de 20103.
Migrants irreguliers et demandeurs dfasile, traites indistinctement, etaient systematiquement
arretes et detenus dans des conditions que les observateurs4 ont qualifiees dfinhumaines,
rapportant notamment des cas de torture. Risquant un refoulement a tout instant, les
clandestins, sfils retrouvaient la liberte, vivaient precairement et exposes au racisme. Le
gouvernement italien a maintenu que la Libye etait un lieu sur pour les migrants et que ce
pays respecterait ses engagements internationaux en matiere dfasile et de protection des
refugies. La Cour souligne que lfexistence de textes internes et la ratification de traites
internationaux garantissant le respect des droits fondamentaux ne suffisent pas, a elles
seules, a assurer une protection adequate contre le risque de mauvais traitements lorsque
des sources fiables font etat de pratiques contraires aux principes de la Convention. Par
ailleurs, lfItalie ne peut se degager de sa responsabilite au regard de la Convention en
invoquant ses engagements ulterieurs decoulant des accords bilateraux avec la Lybie. La
Cour note en outre que le bureau du HCR a Tripoli nfa jamais ete reconnu par le
gouvernement libyen.
Cette realite en Libye etant notoire et facile a verifier a lfepoque des faits, la Cour estime
qufau moment dfeloigner les requerants, les autorites italiennes savaient ou devaient savoir
qufils y seraient exposes a des traitements contraires a la Convention. En outre, le fait que
les requerants nfaient pas expressement demande lfasile ne degageait pas lfItalie de ses
2 Organes internationaux et organisations non-gouvernementales ; voir ˜˜ 37-41 de lfarret
3 Rapport du 28 avril 2010 du Comite pour la prevention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains
ou degradants (CPT) du Conseil de lfEurope apres une visite en Italie.
4 Le HCR, Human Rights Watch et Amnesty International
4
responsabilites. La Cour rappelle les obligations des Etats decoulant du droit international en
matiere de refugies, dont le á principe de non-refoulement â que consacre aussi la Charte
des droits fondamentaux de lfUnion europeenne. La Cour attache a ce sujet un poids
particulier a la lettre ecrite le 15 mai 2009 par M. Jacques Barrot, vice-president de la
Commission europeenne, dans laquelle il reitere lfimportance de ce principe5.
La Cour, estimant par ailleurs que la situation commune des requerants et de nombreux
autres clandestins en Lybie nfenleve rien au caractere individuel du risque allegue, conclut
qufen transferant les requerants vers la Libye, les autorites italiennes les ont exposes en
pleine connaissance de cause a des traitements contraires a la Convention. La Cour conclut
par consequent a la violation de lfarticle 3.
Risque de subir de mauvais traitements dans le pays dforigine des requerants
Le caractere indirect du refoulement dfun etranger ne degage pas de sa responsabilite lfEtat
qui y procede, lequel doit sfassurer que le pays intermediaire offre des garanties contre un
refoulement arbitraire, surtout si cet Etat nfest pas partie a la Convention. La Cour recherche
si de telles garanties existaient dans cette affaire. Lfensemble des informations en sa
possession indiquent visiblement une situation dfinsecurite generalisee en Somalie . voir les
conclusions de la Cour dans lfaffaire Sufi et Elmi c. Royaume-Uni6 . et en Erythree . risques
de torture et de detention dans des conditions inhumaines, du simple fait dfavoir quitte le
pays irregulierement. Les requerants pouvaient donc faire valoir que leur rapatriement
porterait atteinte a lfarticle 3 de la Convention. Observant que la Libye nfa pas ratifie la
Convention de Geneve et notant lfabsence de toute procedure dfasile ou de protection des
refugies dans ce pays, la Cour ne souscrit pas a lfargument selon lequel lfaction du HCR a
Tripoli representait une garantie contre les rapatriements arbitraires. Des cas de retours
forces de demandeurs dfasile et de refugies vers des pays a risque ont dfailleurs ete denonces
par Human Rights Watch et le HCR. Ainsi, lfobtention du statut de refugie en Lybie par
certains requerants, loin dfetre rassurante, etait susceptible dfaccroitre leur vulnerabilite.
La Cour conclut qufau moment de transferer les requerants vers la Libye, les autorites
italiennes savaient ou devaient savoir qufil nfexistait pas de garanties suffisantes les
protegeant du risque dfetre renvoyes arbitrairement dans leurs pays dforigine. Ce transfert a
donc emporte violation de lfarticle 3.
Article 4 du Protocole no4
Recevabilite du grief
La Cour est appelee pour la premiere fois a examiner lfapplicabilite de lfarticle 4 du Protocole
no4 a un cas dfeloignement dfetrangers vers un Etat tiers effectue en dehors du territoire
national. Elle recherche si le transfert des requerants vers la Lybie a constitue une expulsion
collective au sens de lfarticle 4 du Protocole no4. La Cour observe que ni le texte ni les
travaux preparatoires de la Convention ne sfopposent a une application extraterritoriale de
cet article. En outre, en limiter lfapplication aux expulsions collectives a partir du territoire
national des Etats membres eliminerait une partie importante des phenomenes migratoires
contemporains et priverait les migrants ayant pris la mer, souvent au peril leur vie sans
parvenir a atteindre les frontieres dfun Etat, dfun examen de leur situation personnelle avant
expulsion, contrairement a ceux ayant pris la voie terrestre. La notion dfexpulsion est
clairement, comme la notion de á juridiction â, principalement liee au territoire national.
Toutefois, la ou la Cour reconnait qufun Etat a exerce, a titre exceptionnel, sa juridiction en
dehors de son territoire national, elle peut admettre que lfexercice de la juridiction
extraterritoriale a pris la forme dfune expulsion collective. La Cour redit en outre que la
specificite du contexte maritime nfen fait pas une zone de non-droit. Elle conclut que ce grief
est recevable.
5 ˜ 34 de lfarret
6 Arret du 28.06.2011
5
Fond du grief
Observant qufelle a a ce jour constate une violation de lfarticle 4 du Protocole no4 dans la
seule affaire .onka c. Belgique7, la Cour rappelle que la similitude de decisions prises a
lfegard dfetrangers concernant leur expulsion ne permet pas en soi de conclure a lfexistence
dfune expulsion collective, si le cas de chaque interesse a ete dument examine. Or, dans la
presente affaire, le transfert des requerants en Libye a eu lieu sans examen des situations
individuelles. Aucune procedure dfidentification nfa ete menee par les autorites italiennes, qui
ont simplement embarque, puis debarque les requerants en Libye. La Cour conclut que
lfeloignement des requerants a eu un caractere collectif contraire a lfarticle 4 du
Protocole no 4.
Article 13 combine avec lfarticle 3 et avec lfarticle 4 du Protocole no4
Le gouvernement italien admet que la verification des situations individuelles des requerants
nfetait pas envisageable a bord des navires militaires. Les requerants alleguent nfavoir recu
aucune information de la part des militaires italiens, qui leur auraient fait croire qufils etaient
diriges vers lfItalie et ne les auraient pas renseignes sur la procedure a suivre pour empecher
leur renvoi en Libye. Cette version des faits, si elle est contestee par le Gouvernement, est
corroboree par de nombreux temoignages recueillis par le HCR, le CPT et Human Rights
Watch, et la Cour y attache un poids particulier. Les requerants nfont ainsi pas pu soumettre
a une autorite competente leurs griefs tires de lfarticle 3 et de lfarticle 4 du Protocole no 4 et
obtenir un controle attentif et rigoureux de leurs demandes avant que la mesure
dfeloignement ne soit executee.
Un recours penal a lfencontre des militaires qui etaient a bord du navire, sfil etait accessible
en pratique, ne remplissait pas le critere de lfeffet suspensif. La Cour rappelle en effet
lfexigence decoulant de lfarticle 13 de faire surseoir a lfexecution dfune mesure contraire a la
Convention et susceptible dfeffets irreversibles. Eu egard aux consequences irreversibles en
cas de concretisation du risque de torture ou de mauvais traitements, lfeffet suspensif dfun
recours doit sfappliquer si un etranger est renvoye vers un Etat ou il y a des motifs serieux de
croire qufil courrait un risque de cette nature. La Cour conclut qufil y a eu violation de lfarticle
13 combine avec lfarticle 3 et avec lfarticle 4 du Protocole no 4.
Article 41
Au titre de la satisfaction equitable, la Cour dit que lfItalie doit verser 15 000 euros (EUR) a
chaque requerant pour dommage moral, et 1 575,74 EUR aux requerants conjointement pour
frais et depens.
Lfarret existe en anglais et francais.
Redige par le greffe, le present communique ne lie pas la Cour. Les decisions et arrets rendus par
la Cour, ainsi que des informations complementaires au sujet de celle-ci, peuvent etre obtenus sur
http://www.echr.coe.int/. Pour sfabonner aux communiques de presse de la Cour, merci de sfinscrire aux
fils RSS de la Cour.
Contacts pour la presse : echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
La Cour europeenne des droits de lfhomme a ete creee a Strasbourg par les Etats membres
du Conseil de lfEurope en 1959 pour connaitre des allegations de violation de la Convention
europeenne des droits de lfhomme de 1950.
7 Arret du 05.02.2002
Returning migrants to Libya without examining their case
exposed them to a risk of ill-treatment and amounted to a
collective expulsion
In todayfs Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
(application no. 27765/09), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,
unanimously, that:
The applicants fell within the jurisdiction of Italy for the purposes of Article 1 of the
European Convention on Human Rights;
There had been two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
of the Convention because the applicants had been exposed to the risk of ill-treatment in
Libya and of repatriation to Somalia or Eritrea;
There had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective
expulsions);
There had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in
conjunction with Article 3 and with Article 4 of Protocol No.4.
The case concerned Somalian and Eritrean migrants travelling from Libya who had been
intercepted at sea by the Italian authorities and sent back to Libya.
Principal facts
The applicants are 11 Somalian and 13 Eritrean nationals. They were part of a group of about
200 people who left Libya in 2009 on board three boats bound for Italy. On 6 May 2009,
when the boats were 35 miles south of Lampedusa (Agrigento), within the maritime search
and rescue region under the responsibility of Malta, they were intercepted by Italian Customs
and Coastguard vessels. The passengers were transferred to the Italian military vessels and
taken to Tripoli. The applicants say that during the journey the Italian authorities did not tell
them where they were being taken, or check their identity. Once in Tripoli, after a 10-hour
voyage, they were handed over to the Libyan authorities. At a press conference on 7 May
2009 the Italian Minister of the Interior said that the interception of the vessels on the high
seas and the return of the migrants to Libya was in accordance with the bilateral agreements
with Libya that had come into force on 4 February 2009, marking an important turning point
in the fight against illegal immigration.
In a speech to the Senate on 25 May 2009 the Minister stated that between 6 and 10 May
2009 more than 471 clandestine migrants had been intercepted on the high seas and
transferred to Libya in accordance with those bilateral agreements. In his view, that pushback
policy discouraged criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and trafficking, helped
save lives at sea and substantially reduced landings of clandestine migrants along the Italian
coast. During the course of 2009 Italy conducted nine operations on the high seas to
intercept clandestine migrants, in conformity with the bilateral agreements concluded with
Libya. On 26 February 2011 the Italian Defence Minister declared that the bilateral
agreements with Libya were suspended following the events in Libya.
1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention).
All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of
their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
According to information submitted to the Court by the applicantsf representatives, two of the
applicants had died in unknown circumstances. Between June and October 2009 fourteen of
the applicants had been granted refugee status by the office of the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) in Tripoli. Following the revolution in Libya in February 2011 the quality of
contact between the applicants and their representatives deteriorated. The lawyers are
currently in contact with six of the applicants, four of whom live in Benin, Malta or
Switzerland and some of whom are awaiting a response to their request for international
protection. One of the applicants is in a refugee camp in Tunisia and is planning to return to
Italy. In June 2011 refugee status was granted to one of the applicants in Italy after he had
clandestinely returned there.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 3, the applicants submitted that the decision of the Italian authorities to
send them back to Libya had exposed them to the risk of ill-treatment there, as well as to the
risk of ill-treatment if they were sent back to their countries of origin (Somalia and Eritrea).
They also complained that they had been subjected to collective expulsion prohibited by
Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. Relying, lastly, on Article 13, they complained that they had had
no effective remedy in Italy against the alleged violations of Article 3 and of Article 4 of
Protocol No. 4.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 2009. On 15
February 2011 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in
favour of the Grand Chamber. A hearing took place in the Human Rights Building,
Strasbourg, on 22 June 2011.
The following organisations were authorised to intervene as third parties (under Article 36 ˜ 2
of the Convention): the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; the non-governmental
organisations Aire Center, Amnesty International and International Federation for Human
Rights (FIDH); the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch; and the Columbia
Law School Human Rights Clinic.
Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President,
Jean-Paul Costa (France),
Francoise Tulkens (Belgium),
Josep Casadevall (Andorra),
Nina Vaji. (Croatia),
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),
Ljiljana Mijovi. (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Dragoljub Popovi. (Serbia),
Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (gthe Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoniah),
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),
I..l Karaka. (Turkey),
Kristina Pardalos (San Marino),
Guido Raimondi (Italy),
Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta),
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal), Judges,
and also Michael OfBoyle, Deputy Registrar.
Decision of the Court
The question of jurisdiction under Article 1
Only in exceptional cases did the Court accept that acts of the member States performed, or
producing effects, outside their territories could constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by them.
3
Whenever the State, through its agents operating outside its territory, exercised control and
authority over an individual, and thus its jurisdiction, the State was under an obligation to
secure the rights under the Convention to that individual.
Italy did not dispute that the ships onto which the applicants had been embarked had been
fully within Italian jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the principle of international law,
enshrined in the Italian Navigation Code, that a vessel sailing on the high seas was subject to
the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of the flag it was flying. The Court could not accept the
Governmentfs description of the operation as a grescue operation on the high seash or that
Italy had exercised allegedly minimal control over the applicants. The events had taken place
entirely on board ships of the Italian armed forces, the crews of which had been composed
exclusively of Italian military personnel. In the period between boarding the ships and being
handed over to the Libyan authorities, the applicants had been under the continuous and
exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities. Accordingly, the events giving
rise to the alleged violations had fallen within Italyfs jurisdiction within the meaning of
Article 1.
Article 3
Risk of suffering ill-treatment in Libya
The Court was aware of the pressure on States resulting from the increasing influx of
migrants, which was a particularly complex phenomenon when occurring by sea, but
observed that this could not absolve a State of its obligation not to remove any person who
would run the risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited under Article 3 in the receiving
country. Noting that the situation in Libya had deteriorated after April 2010, the Court
decided to confine its examination of the case to the situation prevailing in Libya at the
material time. It noted that the disturbing conclusions of numerous organisations2 regarding
the treatment of clandestine immigrants were corroborated by the report of the Committee
for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) of 20103.
Irregular migrants and asylum seekers, between whom no distinction was made, had been
systematically arrested and detained in conditions described as inhuman by observers4, who
reported cases of torture among others. Clandestine migrants had been at risk of being
returned to their countries of origin at any time and, if they managed to regain their freedom,
had been subjected to particularly precarious living conditions and exposed to racist acts. The
Italian Government had maintained that Libya was a safe destination for migrants and that
Libya complied with its international commitments as regards asylum and the protection of
refugees. The Court observed that the existence of domestic laws and the ratification of
international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights were not in themselves
sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable
sources had reported practices contrary to the principles of the Convention. Furthermore,
Italy could not evade its responsibility under the Convention by referring to its subsequent
obligations arising out of bilateral agreements with Libya. The Court noted, further, that the
Office of the UNHCR in Tripoli had never been recognised by the Libyan Government. That
situation had been well-known and easy to verify at the relevant time. The Court therefore
considered that when the applicants had been removed, the Italian authorities had known or
should have known that they would be exposed to treatment in breach of the Convention.
Furthermore, the fact the applicants had not expressly applied for asylum had not exempted
Italy from its responsibility. The Court reiterated the obligations on States arising out of
international refugee law, including the gnon-refoulement principleh also enshrined in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Court attached particular weight
in this regard to a letter of 15 May 2009 from Mr Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the
European Commission, in which he reiterated the importance of that principle5.
2 International bodies and non-governmental organisations; see paragraphs 37 . 41 of the judgment
3 Report of 28 April 2010 of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (CPT) of the Council of Europe after a visit to Italy
4 The UNHCR, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
5 Paragraph 34 of the judgment
4
The Court, considering that the fact that a large number of irregular immigrants in Libya had
found themselves in the same situation as the applicants did not make the risk concerned
any less individual, concluded that by transferring the applicants to Libya the Italian
authorities had, in full knowledge of the facts, exposed them to treatment proscribed by the
Convention. The Court thus concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Risk of suffering ill-treatment in the applicantsf country of origin
The indirect removal of an alien left the Statefs responsibility intact, and that State was
required to ensure that the intermediary country offered sufficient guarantees against
arbitrary refoulement particularly where that State was not a party to the Convention. The
Court would determine whether there had been such guarantees in this case. All the
information in the Courtfs possession showed prima facie that there was widespread
insecurity in Somalia . see the Courtfs conclusions in the case of Sufi and Elmi v. the United
Kingdom6 . and in Eritrea . individuals faced being tortured and detained in inhuman
conditions merely for having left the country irregularly. The applicants could therefore
arguably claim that their repatriation would breach Article 3 of the Convention. The Court
observed that Libya had not ratified the Geneva Convention and noted the absence of any
form of asylum and protection procedure for refugees in the country. The Court could not
therefore subscribe to the Governmentfs argument that the UNHCRfs activities in Tripoli
represented a guarantee against arbitrary repatriation. Moreover, Human Rights Watch and
the UNHCR had denounced several forced returns of asylum seekers and refugees to highrisk
countries. Thus, the fact that some of the applicants had obtained refugee status in
Libya, far from being reassuring, might actually have increased their vulnerability.
The Court concluded that when the applicants were transferred to Libya, the Italian
authorities had known or should have known that there were insufficient guarantees
protecting them from the risk of being arbitrarily returned to their countries of origin. That
transfer accordingly violated Article 3.
Article 4 of Protocol No.4
Admissibility of the complaint
The Court was required, for the first time, to examine whether Article 4 of Protocol No. 4
applied to a case involving the removal of aliens to a third State carried out outside national
territory. It had to ascertain whether the transfer of the applicants to Libya constituted a
collective expulsion within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. The Court observed that
neither the text nor the travaux preparatoires of the Convention precluded the extraterritorial
application of that provision. Furthermore, were Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to apply
only to collective expulsions from the national territory of the member States, a significant
component of contemporary migratory patterns would not fall within the ambit of that
provision and migrants having taken to the sea, often risking their lives, and not having
managed to reach the borders of a State, would not be entitled to an examination of their
personal circumstances before being expelled, unlike those travelling by land. The notion of
expulsion, like the concept of gjurisdictionh, was clearly principally territorial. Where,
however, the Court found that a State had, exceptionally, exercised its jurisdiction outside its
national territory, it could accept that the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by that State
had taken the form of collective expulsion. The Court also reiterated that the special nature of
the maritime environment did not make it an area outside the law. It concluded that the
complaint was admissible.
Merits of the complaint
The Court observed that, to date, the .onka v. Belgium7 case was the only one in which it
had found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. It reiterated that the fact that a number of
aliens were subject to similar decisions did not in itself lead to the conclusion that there was a
6 Judgment of 28.06.2011
7 Judgment of 05.02.2002
5
collective expulsion if the case of each person concerned had been duly examined. In the
present case the transfer of the applicants to Libya had been carried out without any
examination of each individual situation. No identification procedure had been carried out by
the Italian authorities, which had merely embarked the applicants and then disembarked
them in Libya. The Court concluded that the removal of the applicants had been of a
collective nature, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 and with Article 4 of Protocol No.4
The Italian Government acknowledged it had not been possible to assess the applicantsf
personal circumstances on board the military ships. The applicants alleged that they had
been given no information by the Italian military personnel, who had led them to believe that
they were being taken to Italy and had not informed them as to the procedure to be followed
to avoid being returned to Libya. That version of events, though disputed by the Government,
was corroborated by a large number of witness statements gathered by the UNHCR, the CPT
and Human Rights Watch. The applicants had thus been unable to lodge their complaints
under Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 with a competent authority
and to obtain a thorough and rigorous assessment of their requests before the removal
measure was enforced.
Even if a remedy under the criminal law against the military personnel on board the ship
were accessible in practice, this did not satisfy the criterion of suspensive effect. The Court
reiterated the requirement flowing from Article 13 that execution of a measure be stayed
where the measure was contrary to the Convention and had potentially irreversible effects.
Having regard to the irreversible consequences if the risk of torture or ill-treatment
materialised, the suspensive effect of an appeal should apply where an alien was returned to
a State where there were serious grounds for believing that he or she faced a risk of that
nature. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction
with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
Article 41
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Italy was to pay each applicant
15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,575.74 to the applicants
jointly in respect of costs and expenses.
The judgment is available in English and French.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on http://www.echr.coe.int/. To receive
the Courtfs press releases, please subscribe to the Courtfs RSS feeds.
Press contacts:
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe
Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human
Rights.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento