The Grand Chamber judgment in the Naı¨t-Liman v. Switzerland case is certainly a much anticipated one. Its outcome had, however, long been foreshadowed by commentators and practitioners alike. The decision confirmed the 2016 Chamber’s judgment by holding that the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s decline of jurisdiction in a civil case involving reparation for torture committed outside the territory of Switzerland by foreign authorities against a foreign national did not amount to a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the Court’s reasoning in the case under review is susceptible of being criticized in more than one respect. The compatibility of the conduct of the Swiss judiciary with Article 6(1) ECHR is dubious to say the least, even more so since the Federal Tribunal’s restrictive interpretation of the requirements for the application of forum necessitatis jurisdiction, and especially of the “sufficient connection” requirement, managed to produce a fully-fledged denial of justice. Should such a trend gain consistency, the effectiveness of the right of access to a court may be put at risk.
La Manna, M., THE ECTHR GRAND CHAMBER’S JUDGMENT IN THE NAI¨TLIMANCASE: AN UNNECESSARY CLARIFICATION OF THEREACH OF FORUM NECESSITATIS JURISDICTION?, <<RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE>>, 2019; 55 (2): 349-382 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/151122]
THE ECTHR GRAND CHAMBER’S JUDGMENT IN THE NAI¨TLIMAN CASE: AN UNNECESSARY CLARIFICATION OF THE REACH OF FORUM NECESSITATIS JURISDICTION?
La Manna, Mariangela
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2019
Abstract
The Grand Chamber judgment in the Naı¨t-Liman v. Switzerland case is certainly a much anticipated one. Its outcome had, however, long been foreshadowed by commentators and practitioners alike. The decision confirmed the 2016 Chamber’s judgment by holding that the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s decline of jurisdiction in a civil case involving reparation for torture committed outside the territory of Switzerland by foreign authorities against a foreign national did not amount to a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the Court’s reasoning in the case under review is susceptible of being criticized in more than one respect. The compatibility of the conduct of the Swiss judiciary with Article 6(1) ECHR is dubious to say the least, even more so since the Federal Tribunal’s restrictive interpretation of the requirements for the application of forum necessitatis jurisdiction, and especially of the “sufficient connection” requirement, managed to produce a fully-fledged denial of justice. Should such a trend gain consistency, the effectiveness of the right of access to a court may be put at risk.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.