Grand Chamber – Mr Nada alleged that the ban on entering or transiting through Switzerland, which had been imposed on him as a result of the addition of his name to the list annexed to the FederalTaliban Ordinance, had breached his right to liberty (Article 5 of the Convention) and his right to respect for private and family life, honour and reputation (Article 8). He submitted that this ban was thus also tantamount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3. He further complained of a breach of his freedom to manifest his religion or beliefs (Article 9), arguing that his inability to leave the enclave of Campione d’Italia had prevented him from worshipping at a mosque. Lastly, he complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of those complaints.
Held: The respondent state was under an obligation to interpret and implement the relevant international measure in the manner that interfered to the least extent possible with the right to private life.
Judges:
Nicolas Bratza, P
Citations:
10593/08 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1691, (2013) 56 EHRR 18, 33 BHRC 453
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 5
Cited by:
Cited – Reyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464381