NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 (12 September 2012)

NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 (12 September 2012)

Switzerland was obliged to implement binding Security Council sanctions and had no discretion to remove the applicant from the list or grant broad exemptions. The sanctions regime did not breach jus cogens norms, and the applicant's rights under the ECHR were not violated by Switzerland's actions, given the lack of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 1691
Parties
Applicant: Youssef Moustafa Nada; Respondent: Swiss Confederation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
12 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Grand Chamber Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
UN Security Council Sanctions, Freedom of Movement, Right to Private and Family Life, Right to Liberty, Effective Remedy
International Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law UN Security Council Sanctions Freedom of Movement Right to Private and Family Life Right to Liberty Effective Remedy

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Youssef Moustafa Nada

Applicant

Swiss Confederation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Grand Chamber Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Switzerland's implementation of UN Security Council sanctions violated the applicant's rights under Articles 5, 8, 9, and 13 of the ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was deprived of liberty or subjected to ill-treatment
  3. 3 Whether there was an effective remedy available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Switzerland was obliged to implement binding Security Council sanctions and had no discretion to remove the applicant from the list or grant broad exemptions. The sanctions regime did not breach jus cogens norms, and the applicant's rights under the ECHR were not violated by Switzerland's actions, given the lack of discretion and the international legal hierarchy established by the UN Charter.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed