The applicants complained of the action and inaction of members of an international security force (‘KFOR’) that had been deployed in Kosovo pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999).
Held: The applications were inadmissible. The Court was not competent ratione personae. This was because the individual respondents fell to be treated as part of KFOR and KFOR was exercising powers ‘lawfully delegated under Chapter VII of the Charter by the UN Security Council’. In these circumstances the actions of the respondents were ‘directly attributable to the UN, an organisation of universal jurisdiction fulfilling its imperative collective security objective’
The Convention cannot be interpreted in a manner which would subject the acts and omissions of contracting parties which are covered by UNSCRs to the scrutiny of the court, as to do so would be to interfere with the fulfilment of the UN’s key mission to secure international peace and security.
Citations:
78166/01, [1999] ECHR 182, 71412/01, (2007) 45 EHRR SE 85
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
Cited – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262994