Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T16:25:46.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Beate Rudolf
Beate Rudolf*
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 532 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995) [hereinafter Preliminary Objections Judgment]; see also the note on this case by Juliane Kokott & Beate Rudolf, 90 AJIL 98 (1996).

2 Quoted mNo. 40/1993/435/514, para. 24 [hereinafter Decision]. The Court, id., para. 34, considered that there should have been a comma after the words “such facts,” because otherwise the sentence did not make sense.

3 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, Art. 31 (3) (e), 1155 UNTS 331.

4 SC Res. 541, UN SCOR, 38th Sess., Res. & Dec. at 15, UN Doc. S/INF/39 (1983); and Res. 550, UN SCOR, 39th Sess., Res. & Dec. at 12, UN Doc. S/INF/40 (1984); Committee of Ministers Res. (Nov. 24, 1983), discussed in Explanatory Memorandum, Eur. Parl. Ass., 35th Sess., Doc. No. 5165, para. 1 (1984). For the Council statement of November 16, 1983, and the Commonwealth Heads of Government press communiqué of November 29, 1983, see Decision, paras. 22, 23.

5 Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Mar. 20, 1952, Europ. TS No. 9.

6 See the dissenting opinions of Judge Pettiti, and of Judge Gölcüklü, para. 3.

7 This had been the Commission’s approach in the case. See Comm’n Rep., paras. 98-99, reprinted in Preliminary Objections Judgment, note 1 supra, at 45.

8 De Becker v. Belgium, App. No. 214/56, [1958] 2 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. 214, 234. The applicant had lost certain civil and political rights as a legal consequence of a Criminal conviction for collaboration with the enemy. This holding was affirmed in X. v. Belgium, App. No. 8701/79, 18 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 250, 253 (1980). See also X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7202/75, 7 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 102, 102-03 (1977).

9 X. v. Switzerland, App. No. 7031/75, 6 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 124, 126 (1977) (deportation order prohibiting reentry into a country).

10 X. & Y. v. Portugal, App. Nos. 8560/79 & 8613/79, 16 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 209, 212 (1979) (exclusion from advancement in military career resulting from assignment to reserve corps).

11 For a similar interpretation, see the ILC’s commentary to draft Article 24, The Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties: Travaux Préparatoires 220 (Ralf Günther, Wetzel & Dietrich, Rauschning eds., 1978)Google Scholar.

12 For this view, see the dissenting opinion of Judges Bernhardt and Lopes Rocha, para. 2.

13 See the Court’s obiter dicta in Papamichadopoulos v. Greece, 260-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 40 (1993); and in Agrotexim v. Greece, 330-A Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 58 (1995); and the holding of the Commission in Agrotexim, App. No. 14807/89, 13 Hum. Rts. LJ. 318, 320 (1992).

14 See, e.g., A., B. & Co. A.F. v. Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 7742/76, 14 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 146 (1978); Mayer, Weidlich, Fullbrecht, Hasenkamp & Golf v. Germany, App. Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/91 & 19549/92, translated in 23 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 386, 390 (1996); and Szechenyi v. Hungary, App. No. 21344/93 (June 30, 1993).

15 Similarly, the Court held that, in determining the length of detention or of Criminal proceedings, it must take into account the state of the proceedings before the critical date. See Yagci & Sargin v. Turkey, 319-A Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 40 (1995); Mansur v. Turkey, 319-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 44 (1995); Mitap & Müftüoglu v. Turkey, No. 6/1995/512/595-596, para. 28 (Mar. 25, 1996). The Commission applied the same rule in the case of Ventura v. Italy, App. No. 7438/76, 12 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 38, 46 (1978).

16 Dissenting opinion of Judges Bernhardt and Lopes Rocha, para. 2; dissenting opinions of Judges Pettiti and Baka; and dissenting opinion of Judge Gölcüklü, para. 4.

17 See the dissenting opinion of Judges Bernhardt and Lopes Rocha, para. 3; and the dissenting opinion of Judge Gölcüklu, para. 4.

18 Preliminary Objections Judgment, note 1 supra, para. 64.

19 But see the dissenting opinion of Judge Baka; and the dissenting opinion of Judge Jambrek, para. 8.

20 See, for an affirmative answer, the dissenting opinion of Judge Jambrek, para. 8.